% \ 33 t 



X s yW 






-\i 



W§ 



wm 



igw**' 



dec 
rcc 



C«« C 



r«rc. 
tctro 

4CCCC 

*t cccc 

» ccc < 






^SS^ccSMt 






« c c 

" r. 



C c CC e 

cue c<c 

■3C c CI 



* ? £&&& 
^S^* 



$ CC rf&&&& 



is 



' CCC cc 

C^^ 
cclc <: 






1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



Jl 



df<gp 

^> v c <r cc 



&«»SS 





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. J 



5 5^-«s 

'< C.CC_c< 

/^CC<r- 
< C C£c*"* 

^CC 
< <C"o 

■ S£<XC3l CC'V 

>S C c<st c:c < 

^CCcCc cc ■ 

JgX cc^ cc 

r ?c ocrc crc ( 

fff, <* CC 1 



L 1 ^^^^^-^„<%,«&,<^,^%><%,'%^,"%7^><%^ <%• U 



cCC 

cccc 



cCc > 

c<C<5 

C<^c c 
cCC c 

:< C_<L_C 



* ■ C 
<3CC «r= 






, cc - 



<crc c ^ «l_.c 



>c^ c c^ 



tc <£< 

rC^lC C 



■^3 ccc c~ <- 5 <: 

-- ccx *JC< tS 

H C c C 





CCC« 


eg 


<L 


CCC < 


c5 o 


*. 


ccc 


<rC < 




CCC • 


Cc c« 




ccc 


CC cc 




cCC 


<zc o 




ccc 


CC c 


C 


CCC 


ere c< 


c 


ccc 


<x e< 




<ccC 


<c Ci 


c c 


c ccc 


«CT~<^ 


c 


CCC 


«C C< 




ccc. 


C Cc 




ccc 


C CC 




c ccc 


<c <rc< 


c 


CCC 


<T CCC 


C 


c ccc' 


CI . cc 




CCC 


<C Ccc 


c c 


< ccc 


c cccc 


C( c 


< CvC 


<L\ <z<ss 




cere 


«c ccc< 




CcC. * 


C <3KC 


m r < 


L ccc < 


IT «3Lcc 



~< cCCCC CCC 

CCC.C CCCCX^ 

recce trc/f? »=- 
'CCCCCICCCC C&£% 

(CCCt cjC C C - pf> c< 
CC<CSCC< C «| 
CC CCC CC CCc ■ cc s~ 
ccccccc c.c re <CC 
rcxjcCCCCCO <C§> 
^ccccccc C£ 

rCCCC^CC Ccc 



cc<cc«_«l 



-recce 
.CC <CCCC_C_ 
-a eCC-' 
c cCc< 

c <*csgc=c: 

cc< «3ECC c c ucc 

nscc c r c°& 

* c ,^- 

_ c ■ :cQ 

^ c cc? 
^ c rcc 

C c c C 

ccc.ee C ccc 

x ccr c e : 

^V^- C. C 



ccc 

CCC 



cc^ 

ccC 



r ('«r- C 



ere <c<^3l£ 

cc cCcc 
-cc cccc 

cc5^ 

€3CC C - 

- re cccx 

CCc C^CIctC 

ice 
r esc 

^.ccC^C 

~^-> : g?cr 

ccV : c_cSc 
h ccc 

="~ tare -<rc:.<L 



c^CC 

crccrc 



^ cC 

c<C 

c «C 
<C/£ l 
cC«aC 

- Cc <C1 

CC <& ? 

cC <C " 

cc«rc 
CC <C 

CLCC 

ccC. 
CC <C 

C«T 

<rc<cr 



(IOC 



cc c< 

cccc 

cc cc 

ccCC 
cccc: 

CCCC 

cccc 



cccs 

ccrx 

cccc 

CCCC 
cC* 



c 5 c<cr 

e C<«< 

CCr 



CC eccc.C< 
c C <ccc C 
cc <cccc v 
cc_ccccC, 

c C «sc c 

Cc C.*^-yc c 



ccc I 

CCCC 

ccc; 

<T<c c_ 

Cc C 

ccc 

ccc 

mm 



c c«s 

cc 
CC€ 



ccjrr. c 

cccc 

enr - 



cccc 

cccc 

CiCCCv 



zJ& 



TRIAL 



OF 



REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



»■»». »■ U »»»»»»»»ll l» l t l 



ioF cON2. RESSl 
iWASHVHg^ 



T " TRIAL OF REV, J. R. &RAVES, 



BEFORE THE 



FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, 



OF NASHVILLE 



Nashville, Sept. 8, 1858. 
At the regular monthly meeting of the 
First Baptist Church, held this evening, 
after the transaction of several items of 
business, a paper was presented by brother 
Charles A. Fuller for the consideration of 
the Church, which was read as follows : 

"We, the mdersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the Editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral and 
unchristian conduct, in four distinct cases, 
as follows : 

First, in that he has sought to .bring 
upon R. B. 0. Howell, the Pastor of said 
church, reproach and injury, and thus to 
destroy his i iharacter and influence in the 
Southwest, ly forcing him into collision 
with Rev. A . C Dayton, late Correspond- 
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now 
one of his issoeiate editors, through the 
publication i a his said paper of various false 
and malieior s representations. 

Secondly, in that he has endeavored to 
distract and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor and four of 
its deacons, and several others of its influ- 
ential meml ers, which he has labored to 



produce by various inflammatory articles, 
published in his paper. 

Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub- 
lished in his said paper against R. B. C. 
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry 
foul and atrocious libels. 

Fourthly, in that he has, at various times, 
attacked, slandered and abused ministers 
and brethren of high character, belonging 
to our denomination, throughout the coun- 
try, in his said paper. 

J. C. Darden, 
Charles A. Fuller. 

Case 1. Under the first charge, we refer 
to "The Southern Baptist Register," for 
1858; to the "Tennessee Baptist," No. 
23, Feb. 13, 1858, and No. 24, Feb. 20 
1858, and No. — July 17, 1858. 

Case 2. Under the second charge, we' re- 
fer to the "Christian Index," No. — , April 
28, 1858, and to the "Tennessee Baptist" 
of the following numbers and dates ; No. 
23, Feb. 13, 1858 ; No. 26, March 6, 1858; 
No. 33, April 24, 1858; No. 34, Feb. 20, 
1858. 

Case 3. Under the third charge, we re- 
fer to the "Tennessee Baptist" of the follow- 
ing: numbers and dates : No. 24, Feb. 20. 
1858; No. 26, March 6, 1858; No. 23, 
Feb. 13, 1858; No. 25. Feb. 27, 1858; 
No. 29 ; March, 27, 1858; No. 30, April 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



3, 1858 ; No. 31, April 10, 1858, No. 32, 
April 17, 1858. 

We make incidental reference to the 
following : 

" Tennessee Baptist/' 7 No. 23, April 13, 
1858; No. 24, Feb. 20, 1858; No. 45, 
July 17, 1858 ; No. 49, August 21, 1858 ; 
a note addressed to Mr. Graves dated April 
3, 1858; correspondence between C. K. 
Winston and C. A. Fuller, and J. R. 
Graves, H. G. Scovel, and G. C. Creighton. 
Case 4. Under the 4th charge, reference is 
made to the conduct of his paper generally 
for some years past. See the articles with 
regard to R. Fuller, in 1853 ; to W. C. 
Duncan of New Orleans; to W. W. Ev- 
erts ; to J. P. Tustin ; to John L. Waller ; 
to J. E. Dawson; to Matt. Hillsman, and 
to the Bible Board. 

Having heard read the aforesaid paper, 
a motion to lay the same upon the table 
was lost; whereupon the following resolu- 
tions, offered by Bro. A. Nelson, were 



Resolved, That the charges against Rev. 
J. R. Graves be entertained, and they be 
set for hearing on the 2lst of September, 
at 7£ o'clock in the evening. 

Resolved, That Rev. J. R. Graves be fur- 
nished with a copy of the charges, and be 
summoned to attend. 

On motion, adjourned till 2lst Sept, 

Tuesday Evening, Sept. 21, 1858. 

Church met according to adjournment, 
and the meeting was opened with singing 
and reading the 67th Psalm. Prayer by 
Dr. S. D. Whitsett. 

The Pastor of the Church having sug- 
gested the' impropriety of his acting as 
Moderator, under existing circumstances, 
Dr. C. K. Winston was 'called to the 
chair, to preside during the pendency 
of the trial of Rev. J. R. Graves. 

The minutes of former meetings, were 
read and approved, when the Moderator 
announced the meeting ready to proceed to 
business. Rev. J. R. Graves not being 
present, the trial was postponed three 
weeks, (to Oct. 12th,) and the Clerk •pro 



tern, instructed to communicate to Brother 
Graves this action of the Church. 

Dr. W. P. Jones then offered a paper for 
the consideration of the Church, which 
reads as follows : 

Inasmuch as individual members of 
this congregation, and the Church collec- 
tively, seem peculiarly liable to be misrepre- 
sented ; inasmuch as we desire in all things 
to be circumspect, and in so far as we can 
to avoid strife, and to arrive only at facts 
in the progress of the investigation upon . 
which we have now entered; and inasmuch 
as we recognize the divine authority of that 
commandment, "Let all things be done 
decently and in order; " therefore, 

Resolved, That as a matter of common 
justice, equality and safety to all, we employ 
an approved reporter, whose duty it shall 
be to report fully, fairly and impartially, 
the testimony adduced{|by either party to 
this trial. 

Resolved, That the reporter shall keep 
in their order all resolutions, etc., with as 
much fidelity as practicable to the lan- 
guage of the speaker; shall take full notes 
of all the speeches or remarks which may 
be made by any one on either side of this 
controversy, or in anywise pertaining 
thereto. 

Resolved, That these reports, as approved, 
endorsed or passed by the Church Clerk 7 
be read (as the usual matters of business) 
at each subsequent meeting of the Church., 
and when thus publicly corrected, in ac- 
cordance with the known facts, that they 
become a part of the permanent r ?cords of 
this body, subject only to its on'er. 

On motion, the foregoing preai lble and 
resolutions were adopted, and Di . W. P 
Jones, A. Nelson, Dr. J. D. Wins ion, and 
E. F. P. Pool, were appointed a commit- 
tee to procure a reporter. 

After the transaction of other )usiness, 
the Church adjourned. 

At the regular monthly meetin j of the 
Church, held Oct. 6th, the comm Jtee ap- 
pointed to procure a reporter, sr Emitted 
the following report, to wit : 

We, the committee appointed to secure 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATES. 



8 



the services of a reporter or reporters, in 
the case of charges preferred by C A. Ful- 
ler and J. C. Barden against Elder J. R. 
Graves^ met at the office of Dr. Winston; 
present Dr. W. P. Jones, A. Nelson, and 
E. F. P. Fool, when it was agreed that 
A. Nelson and E. F. P. Pool, should see 
Mr. J. 31. McKee, of the Union & Ameri- 
can ofhce, and Mr. H. K. Walker, of the 
Banner. 

"We saw 3Ir. McKee, who informed us 
that he would undertake to report the pro- 
ceedings on Tuesday night next, and for 
his services he would take a fair compen- 
sation for the labor performed. 

We then saw Mr. Walker, who agreed 
to undertake it if he would be allowed to 
publish the reports in his paper. If not, 
he could not say, nor would he agree to 
act; as he said his main object would be to 
get it in the Banner. 

A. Nelsox, ) n 
E. F. P. Pool, \ Com ' 

On motion, Mr. J. M. McKee was se- 
lected as the reporter, and L. Collins re- 
quested to act as assistant. 

Adjourned. 

Tuesday Evening, Oct. 12, 1858. 

The Church met pursuant to adjourn- 
ment. 

The exercises were opened by reading a 
portion ef Scripture, and prayer by the 
Moderator. 

The Moderator then announced that the 
Church had met for the purpose of trying 
Elder J. R. Graves, upon charges prefer- 
red against him by members of the First 
Baptist Church, and the Clerk was directed 
to read the record of the proceedings had 
so far in the case, including the charges. 

The record having been read, the Mode- 
rator stated that if any member had any 
objection to the same he would please to 
make it known. 

JS r o objection having been made, the re- 
cord was declared approved. 

The Clerk then read the following paper: 

We, the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes- 



see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member 
of said church, and one of the editors of 
the Tennessee Bajitist, with grossly immoral 
and unchristian conduct, in that he has 
uttered and published in his said paper the 
following willful and deliberate falsehoods : 

1. " We can, with a clear conscience, 
appeal to the Judge of all the earth, that 
we have not intentionally injured any man, 
and if we have unwittingly done so, wc 
truly regret it and are willing to repair the 
injury." 

2. " All that we could rightly do to ef- 
fect a reconciliation, though the offended 
and assailed party, we have done." 

8. " It will be seen that both the lash 
and the laic have been threatened against 
one or all the editors of this paper." 

4. " Reports have been put forth from 
this city and circulated in it, that the Sen- 
ior Editor of this paper was a vile charac- 
ter, a dishonest man, and that frightful 
revelations would be made of his standing 
at home when the church trial came off. 
(Note) Elder Howell made this charge be- 
fore he had been in the city nine months." 

5. "What frightful crimes are we charged 
with ? The most stupendous one is the 
leaving of the D. D. from the name of R. 
B. C. Howell in the Southern Baptist Reg- 
ister for 1858 ! " 

6. " We are arraigned before the church 
for grossly immoral conduct and atrocious 
libel, &c, because we have left the D. D. 
off Elder Howell's name." 

7. " One of the very prosecutors he 
[Howell] employs, C. A. Fuller, can threat- 
en to cowhide Elder Dayton, not only in 
his office, but even in the hearing of the 
whole church, and not so much as a re- 
proof is offered him." 

8. " The other principal orator of the 
21st September, [Dr. W. P. Jones,] is not 
only known to Elder Howell as a teacher 
of gross heresy in his class — teaching views 
calculated to overthrow one of the articles 
of faith of the First Baptist Church, a fun- 
damental article of Christianity and reli- 
gion — but known also to Elder H. and the 
church, as the public defamer of Elder J. 
M. Pendleton ; not only so, but he is per- 
mitted to defame Elder J. M. P. in the 
church meeting of the 21st, before Elder 
H.'s face, without receiving so much as a' 
reproof from Elder H." 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



9. " Our readers will notice the closing 
period of 3Ir. Fuller's article. [I defer 
further remarks until a future opportunity, 
when A. C. Dayton shall have no occasion 
to say he has not reaped an ample reward 
for the vituperation in which he has of 
late so freely indulged.] It is singular lan- 
guage for a Christian gentleman to use to- 
wards a brother in the .same church, and a 
brother Mason. Such threats of brute 
violence, which have been twice repeated — 
once to Brother Buchanan and once upon 
the floor of the church, in church meeting, 
reflect no credit upon either Mr. Fuller's 
bravery or his principles." 

S. M. Scott. 
A. Nelson. 

It was moved and seconded that these 
charges be entertained by the church, which 
motion being submitted to the church, was 
adopted. 

Thereupon the Moderator declared that 
the church had decided to entertain the 
charges preferred against Elder J. R. 
Graves by S. M. Scott and A. Nelson. 

Mr. Fuller submitted a motion that the 
charges previously presented against Elder 
J. R. Graves, and set for hearing to-night, 
be now taken up and considered. 

Which motion being submitted to the 
church, was concurred in. 

Mr. Scovel wished it noted upon the re- 
cord that he was opposed to trying Elder 
J. R. Graves upon the charges preferred 
against him in the manner in which these 
proceedings had been instituted. 

The charges having been read by the 
Clerk, 

The Moderator called on Elder Graves 
to state whether he admitted or denied the 
charges. 

Elder Graves : I deny. 

The Moderator : Then it will devolve 
upon the prosecution to establish the 
charges preferred against Elder Graves. 

Elder Graves inquired whether he would 
be allowed to answer these charges pre- 
ferred against him. He was accused of 



making libelous charges against his pastor ; 
and he desired to meet and answer them. 

The Moderator stated that, of course, he 
would be allowed ample opportunity to 
make his defense at the proper time, but 
that there was no motion before the church 
at present, and until a motion admitting of 
debate was submitted, Elder Graves could 
not be heard. 

Elder Graves protested against this trial 
as being unscriptural, and appealed to the 
church to hear him in defense. 

The Moderator stated that if Elder 
Graves desired to be heard by the church, 
a motion to non-suit ?he charges for in- 
formality, would bring the case up for con- 
sideration, when he could make any state- 
ment he desired. 

Mr. Rutland submitted a motion that 
the charges preferred against Elder J. R. 
Graves be thrown out, because the scriptu- 
ral usage in such proceeding had not been 
observed. 

The Moderator declared this motion in 
order, and that Elder Graves could now be 
heard. 

Elder Graves stated that he had some- 
thing to say in regard to this trial, and that 
he might not be misrepresented, he had 
committed what he had to say to writing. 
He then read the following protest : 

I received, upon my return home, a copy 
of the charges preferred against me, in my 
absence, by two members of this Church, 
in behalf of the pastor, (Elder R. B. C. 
Howell,) and several other private individ- 
uals, for alleged personal offences given in 
the course of my public journalism for the 
past five years. I might justly complain 
at being seized of an ecclesiastical arrest 
while in another State, intently prosecuting 
a great denominational enterprise; when 
the alleged offences had been of so long 
standing, and my residence here had given 
the parties the most ample opportunity Tor 
conference or arraignment — yet I will not 
complain, nor even inquire into the motive 
of this strange procedure. 

First of all, I desire that it shall be dis- 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



tinctly understood that I stand ready, now 
and ever, to meet any and all charges 
brought against me, either as a citizen or 
as a Christian. But as an American citi- 
zen, I have the right to be tried by the 
laws of my country, and no man can force 
me to be tried by any other. I might be 
.ynched by a mob ; but tried I could not 
be, except by the law of the land. As a 



before the eyes of men, all the law 
of Christ. 

Three of the four charges preferred are 
confessedly personal to the pastor of the 
Church. This was distinctly avowed by 
the pastor when at your meeting, on the 
21st September, he declined acting as 
Moderator during the progress of this trial, 
and of this I have other proof under his 



Christian and a Baptist, it is not only my j own signature. 
right, but my duty to be tried by the lawsi The law touching personal offences is 
of Jesus Christ, the only Head of his j most clear and explicit, and reads as fol- 
Church. By the laws of Christ, found in j lows : 

the New Testament, I am ever ready to be " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass 
tried. Let me be arraigned according to against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
those laws, and by those I will most cheer- thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, 
fully be tried. I appear before this Church thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will 
to demand a scriptural arraignment, and a not hear thee, then take tvith thee one or two 
fair and impartial trial for the offences al- more, that in the mouth of two or three wit- 
leged in the indictment, and if I can be nesses, every word may be established. And 
convinced that I have unwittingly injured if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
any one of these parties, (for intentionally I Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, 
know! have not,) I am ready to make what- let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a 
ever satisfaction a Christian brother can Publican." 

make, or any one rightly demand. Dutyj Xow, it must be evident to every unbi- 
to Christ, and love to my brother would , assed mind, that if the pastor was offended 
impel me to do this ; nor would it be to me j w i t h me , it was his duty to come to me 
a mortification, but a pleasure. But since j privately, and in the spirit of a brother, 
these charges have been brought, and thus j and tell me my fault between him and me 
far entertained by the Church, not only j alone, and seek reconciliation and repara- 
without the sanction of the laws of Christ, , tion. If he found me .obstinate and impen- 
but in direct and open disregard of their, itent, he should have taken one or two 
express requirements— I must, should I, other brethren, (not my known and bitter 
voluntarily submit to be tried upon this ar- 1 enemies,) but those who were known to 
raignment, regard myself as giving sane- have our mutual good at heart, whose testi- 



tion to a proceeding which is in open vio- 
lation of the commandment of Christ, and 



mony should be sufficient to convince me 
of my error, should they testify against me, 



I therefore respectfully decline to answer to, and not until I had refused to hear them, 
these charges as brought before you, and j should my pastor have told his offence to 
solemnly protest against your past proceed- 
ings in my case. 

Were I as certain of being triumphantly 
acquitted under this process, as I am cer- 
tain that I am innocent of having unne- 
cessarily and intentionally given offence to 
any one, I would no less earnestly and sol- 
emnly, as a Christian, a Baptist, and a 
minister, bound by fealty to Christ alone 
and witnessing for the dignity and authori 



the Church, or have suffered it, with his 
consent, to be told to the Church. Now, 
if this Church, by its action, sustains the 
pastor in his open disregard of the plain 
letter of the law of Christ, by inducing or 
permitting other brethren to prosecute an 
offending brother for him without complying 
with these requisitions, then this Church 
decides that this law concerning personal 
offences may at any time be set aside by a 



ty of his word, protest in the name of the similar subterfuge. If A. offends B., B. 



Lord Jesus Christ, against being made, in 
any sense, a party to such unlawful meas- 
ures. 

1. In my arraignment you have 



need only get C. or D. to prosecute A. be- 
fore the Church for the offence. 

The first step in the process of gospel 
discipline has not been taken in my case, 



both disregarded and openly violated, | nor has the second, and the prosecutor de 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



facto has persistently refused to take them, 
and until he does, the Church cannot in 
accordance with the law of Christ, entertain 
his charges ; and not only so, hut if he per- 
sists in refusing to regard them, it will be 
her dutv to arraign him for an open violation 
of the Word of God. 

Remand, then, this case, as it is your 
duty to do, and let my pastor seek a private 
interview with me, and if I fail to do my 
duty in the premises, "let my right hand 
forget its cunning ; " and if a personal in- 
terview fails, let him come to me with one 
or two more brethren (our mutual friends) 
and if I neglect to hear them, " let my 
tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ; " 
if I am arraigned before my Church, when 
convened in the spirit and authority of the 
Lord Jesus, and the Church utters her 
voice, and I refuse to hear it, then, but not 
until then, let me "be unto you as a heathen 
man and a publican. " 

2. But I protest against these proceed- 
ings upon another ground : and that is, that 
they are calculated to make, and do make, 
a false representation of the facts in the 
case, inasmuch as they present me as the 
offending, whereas, I am in reality the of- 
fended party — as I am fully prepared to 
show. 

As the offended party, I have endeavored 
to take the gospel steps, but I have been 
denied both a private interview and one 
with brethren. I have besought him 
t me in the spirit of Christ, assuring 
him that if I could be convinced that I had 
done him wrong, I would offer him the 
must ample satisfaction, but he has treated 
my overtures with the utmost contempt, 
and refused any interview with me. It was 
I was encouraged to hope that a 
private adjustment possibly might be ef- 
fected that I delayed my appeal to the 
Church for advice. It was while affairs 
in this posture that I was called away, 
and during my absence this indictment was 
. inst me through a third party. 

3. T I against the right of this 
Church to try me upon the fourth charge : 

ch as yet has no possible 

■ r the matters elf 

1. The charge has reference to alleged 

offences against sundry persons living and 

dead, mentioned in the specifications. 

The matters charged, are, therefore, con- 



fessedly personal to those individuals, and 
must be brought to trial according to the 
law of Christ for personal offences. (Matt. 
18 : 15—17.) The directions of Christ 
have not been observed in any of these, 
and therefore, this Church cannot rightly 
entertain the charges against me. 

2. Because this Church manifestly has 
no authority to prosecute it, (the fourth 
charge) under the circumstances as they 
exist, and if she does it, she does it con- 
trary to all law human and divine. For, 

The parties are not known to this Church 
as complainants. Many of them owe no 
jurisdiction to this Church. My acquittal 
would involve their condemnation and dis- 
grace. What right then has the Church 
to investigate and pass upon their conduct 
without their knowledge or consent, and 
thus implicate their conduct or character 
before the world. 

These foreign parties, Waller, Fuller, 
Duncan, Everts, Tustin, and Dawson, are 
either ignorant that a charge is preferred 
here that involves them, or they are know- 
ing to it, and have authorized Messrs. Dar- 
den and Fuller to prosecute me on their 
behalf. 

If they are ignorant of your doings, or 
have not authorized you thus to involve 
them, then have you already perpetrated a 
gross outrage upon their rights, and if you 
proceed may inflict an irremediable injury 
upon them, by passing upon their conduct 
in their absence without their having an 
opportunity to explain or defend. But if 
they have given their consent, then they 
are really parties concerned, and are bound 
with the pastor of this Church, to observe 
the laws of Christ as regards personal of- 
fences. 

But I have the evidence, that several, if 
not a majority of the parties mentioned in 
the fourth charge, have not only not uiven 
their consent to this trial, nor desired it, 
but some of them were even ignorant of it 
until informed by myself, and express their 
surprise that Messrs. Darden and Fuller 
should undertake this prosecution for them. 

I doubt if a charge of this character was 
ever before brought under such circum- 
in any civil) 

But even though I could have waived all 
these difficulties, and gained my consent to 
go into trial under these charges, yet there 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



is one circumstance which would render it 
impossible for me to make a right and true 
defence. I protest, therefore, in the third 
and last place against going into this trial 
on the ground that you have given me no 
sul'i specifications as will enable me to 
know what is relied upon by my accusers 
for my conviction. 

You have, indeed, referred me to the 
Southern Baptist Register for 1858, a work 
of sixty pages, but I do not suppose any 
one regards the whole document as grossly 
immoral and unchristian, and I have no 
means of knowing with any certainty of 
what part, or how many parts, Elder How- 
ell complains. He has never told me. 
You refer me to sundry numbers of the 
Tennessee Baptist, but have left me in utter 
ignorance of what articles, or what sen- 
tences, are to be regarded as injurious, or 
libelous. If you had intended that I 
should have a fair trial you should have 
shown me the very words and sentences 
which were regarded as wrong, so that I 
might have come here prepared to prove 
their truth, or to explain them, if possible, 
bo as to remove the offence. 

It is the custom in the Romish Inquisi- 
tion to put men on their trial without spe- 
cifications of their offences, so that they may 
not be able to make good a defence, but 
Lave no such custom, neither the 
Churches of God." 

For these and other reasons, I entreat you 
in the name of justice, nay, I charge you 
by the authority of the Lord Jesus, that 
you rescindyour proceedings touching me, 
and require: of those claiming to be offended 
with me, to observe the plain requirements 
of the Word of God, by taking the well 
known steps of gospel discipline — and that 
you will not attempt further to force me 
into a trial under such circumstances as 
these. 

If, however, you persist in the course 
which has been followed thus far, and de- 
termine to proceed with an investigation, I 
dare not give my consent, and do hereby 
declare, that I will be no party, direct or 
indirect, to such unscriptural proceedings. 

If you refuse to grant this protest, I ask 
as an act of justice to me, that you will al- 
low it to be entered upon the records of this 
liurch. Respectfully submitted, 

J, E. Graves. 



Dr. Howell stated that he was surprised 
to hear the paper just read by Mr. Graves. 
It devolved upon him to make an expla- 
nation in regard to the case before the 
church, which he would do in as few words 
as possible. 

Mr. Graves, he said, protests against this 
trial as unscriptural and unjust, on several 
accounts, but mainly because, as he alleges, 
the previous scriptural steps had not been 
taken. He, (Dr. H.,) did not consider it 
in this light, or it would never have had 
his sanction. He knew well, and the fact 
would appear in the trial, that on his part 
the measures adopted had all been strictly 
scriptural. The charges against Mr. Graves 
were preferred not by him, as the gentle- 
man alleged, but by brethren Fuller and 
Darden, who were members of this church 
in good standing, and fully able to main- 
tain the ground they had assumed. It 
matters not who advised the course to be 
pursued ; they were here to prosecute the 
charges they have preferred against Mr, 
Graves. 

The relations that subsisted between Mr. 
Graves and himself were of a friendly 
character until a proposition was made in 
the Convention here to establish a Sunday 
School Board of Publication. He had ta- 
ken a special interest in Mr. Graves, and 
done all he could to promote his welfare. 
He had advised Mr. Graves that his 
(Graves') honor demanded that he should 
not insist upon the appointment of this 
Board; that if he did, since he was a pub- 
lisher, people would say that he did so 
from interested motives, though he, (Dr. 
Howell,) had taken particular pains to as- 
sure Mr. Graves that he himself did not 
charge any such motive. This, according 
to Mr. Graves, was the origin of this diffi- 
culty. It was then Mr. Graves' duty to 
have come to him, and to have demeaned 
himself as directed in the 18th chapter of 
Matthew. Instead of this, Mr. Graves 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



had assailed him, (Howell,) in a grossly ell,) 
personal and abusive manner through his 
newspaper, the Tennessee Baptist, and that 
too, for doing what he considered an act of 
kindness. The law of brotherly love, and 
governing as Mr. Graves claims, in this 
case, as laid down by Matthew, had not 
been observed by Mr. Graves, who pro- 
fesses to have been aggrieved by his, (How- 
ell's) course, in regard to the creation of a 
Sunday School Board. Mr. Graves did 
not come to him and state his grievance, 
but assailed him violently in the Tennessee 
Baptist, week after week, for two months. 
Many of the proofs to sustain the charges 
against Mr. Graves, had been selected from 
his paper during that time, and these ex- 
tracts show that the temper that was man- 
ifested from that quarter towards him was 
any thing but brotherly. If he had of- 
fended Mr. Graves, according to the doc- 
trine of his protest, he should have come 
to him and expostulated with him as a 
brother. 

When, after all this, Mr. Graves had 
taken a prominent part in a prayer meet- 
ing, in his, (Howell's,) absence, he had 
addressed a strictly private note to Mr. 
Graves, stating that this was offensive to 
members of the church, on account of his 
conduct towards him, and requesting him 
not to repeat it until he had withdrawn the 
charges he had made against him, (How- 
ell,) as publicly as he had made them. 
This note, marked strictly private, Mr. 
Graves made it a point to show to as many 
as he could approach, and had published 
and spread broadcast over the whole South. 
Notwithstanding this, he, (Howell,) hoped, 
for various reasons, that it would not be 
necessary to bring his conduct before the 
church, and had waited three months to 
see whether a sense of duty would not 
prompt Mr. Graves to do him justice. 
Failing or refusing to do this, and still re- 
peating his assaults in his paper, he, (How- 



then wrote a note, and placed it 
in the hands of brethren, in the hope 
of bringing about a reconciliation. Mr. 
Graves appointed brethven on his part, 
thus recognizing the scriptural character 
of the proceeding up to the 20lh day of 
July last. These brethren commenced 
their negotiations, which continued till the 
16th clay of August, thus lingering in this 
state in spite of every effort to accelerate 
it. When called upon, he, (Howell,) an- 
swered that he was ready to do whatever 
an honorable man or a christian could do. 
He offered Mr. Graves the following pro- 
position : 

1. J. R. Graves is required to withdraw 
all the charges of an offensive and person- 
al character that he has made against Dr. 
Howell, which he (Howell) will specifically 
present, in as few words as possible, in the 
same manner and as extensively as he has 
made them, without note or commeut. 

2. R. B. C. Howell shall on his part 
withdraw all the charges of an offensive and 
personal character that he has made against 
Mr. Graves, which he (Graves) will specifi- 
cally present, in as few words as possible, 
in the same manner and as extensively as he 
has made them, without note or comment. 

This reciprocal proposition he (Howell) 
regarded as perfectly fair and honorable. 
It was rejected by Mr. Graves, who here 
insists that he (Howell) ought, if he thought 
he was injured, to have come to him ac- 
cording to the 18th chapter of Matthew ! ! 
The truth was, the whole thing had be- 
come a public scandal, they had long since 
passed the 18th chapter of Matthew, aud 
the law governing the case was Hid down 
in 5th chapter of First Corinthians. They 
were obliged to take the case from this 
point, and not from the beginning, when 
Mr. Graves had wholly disregarded and 
violated the law. Mr. Graves rejected all 
these overtures, and the matter closed be- 
fore he left the city. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



The effort to bring about an adjustment 
between them having tbus failed, brethren 
inquired what ought to be done, whether 
they ought to wait for the regular church 
meeting ; he (Howell) replied, certainly, 
do not be in a hurry about it, that the mat- 
ter ought to be brought before the regular 
church meeting and a scriptural discipline 
enforced. This step was accordingly taken, 
but Mr. Graves being absent, he had advo- 
cated and advised, and all cheerfully con- 
curred in a postponement of action in the 
matter until his return. 

Dr. Howell stated that he had been in 
the ministry nearly forty years, and had 
lived peaceably with all men up to that time, 
and he would show, in the course of that 
trial, that he had made every effort to live 
in peace with Mr. Graves. 

Mr. Graves claimed to be the offended 
party. In reply to this Dr. Howell said 
that he had not published a paragraph in any 
newspaper since last December, except a 
short letter recommending brother Walton 
as Corresponding Secretary of the General 
Association ; while he had been assailed, 
week after week, in the Tennessee Baptist, in 
the most violent and personally abusive 
manner. During all this time he had pur- 
posely abstained from saying anything about 
Mr. Graves, either in a newspaper or in the 
pulpit. How then, he would inquire, could 
3Ir. Graves, unless he recurred to what 
passed in November of last year, be the of- 
fended party ? 

Mr. Graves, he said, had inquired how 
many of the parties referred to in the fourth 
charge had been heard from. Dr. Howell 
stated that letters had been received from 
brethren Dawson, Everts, Tustin and Dun- 
can, who demanded that the trial should be 
proceeded with. He was somewhat surprised 
at Mr. Graves' position in regard to the 
fourth charge. If, said he, a member of 
this church slanders a brother not under its 
jurisdiction, are we to sit silent and permit 



it ? Is the church not bound to take no- 



| tice of such conduct, in any of its members, 
j and even though not requested to do so by 
\ the injured parties ? Letters had been re- 
ceived from several individuals besides 
| those mentioned, and at least one church 

abroad, demanding that this church should 
I . 

; proceed in the case of discipline now be- 

j fore it. 

Mr. Graves, said Dr. Howell, objects to 

, this trial on the ground that the specifica- 
tions upon the charges preferred against 

i him are not sufficiently definite. He has 
not waited to hear the evidence, which will 
be forthcoming, in all its extent, when 
these charges come up for consideration. 
He refuses to be tried because he has not 
heard the evidence. Dr. Howell hoped the 
church would proceed with the case, and if 
Mr. Graves refused to attend and defend 
himself, it was his own business. Mr. 
Graves, with others, was editor of the Ten- 
nessee Baptist, and if brethren were misrep- 
resented, slandered and defamed by that 
paper, the church ought to investigate such 
matters, and put its seal of condemnation 
upon the offender. 

The impression had been attempted to be 
made by Mr. Graves, that he (Howell) re- 
garded as a great offence the omission to 
attach " D. D." to his name in the Southern 
Baptist Register. He says, indeed, that 

' that is one of the most tremendous (or 
some such word) of the charges against 
him. He (Howell) had seen that publi- 
cation but had not noticed whether the 
" D. D." was attached to his name or 
not. It was of no sort of consequence to 
him whatever, and no such charge was 
made, as Mr. Graves himself well knew. 
One thing however, he (Howell) did notice. 
The Tennessee Bajytist came to him directed 
in pencil, " Elder Dr. R, B. C. Howell, 
D. D." 

Mr, Graves (interrupting) said that was 
done in the business part of the office for 



10 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



which the editor assumed no responsibil- 
ity. 

Dr. Howell said that he would not then 
further discuss these questions, since they 
would all come up regularly in the course 
of the trial, and he should speak of them 
fully and satisfactorily. He hoped that the 
church throughout the trial, would be 
guided by the strictest impartiality. He 
appealed to the members of the church to 
hear the evidence, particularly from the 
other side, if the defence should offer any, 
and let come what would, do rigid. 

Elder Graves said he was happy to eon- 
front brother Howell. We are now doing 
what should have been done in the first in- 
stance — each specifying his grievances — 
but it should have been done privately, as 
between brethren, and not before this im- 
mense audience. Had this course been 
pursued, this matter might have been 
settled outside of the church. Dr. How- 
ell had closed his remarks by calling him 
(Graves) brother, and he cheerfully recip- 
rocated the spirit which he hoped prompted 
it, for he entertained no ill-feeling forBro. 
Howell. He had no desire, and never had, 
to injure Dr. Howell, and if he (Howell) 
had come to him as his Pastor and as a 
Christian brother, and made known his 
grievances, it would not have been his 
(Graves') fault if the matter had not been 
amicably adjusted. He contended, howev- 
er, that Dr. Howell had not adopted this 
course, but had assailed him. 

Elder Graves assumed that this is a per- 
sonal and not a public matter, and should 
have been settled according to Matthew 
18th. Dr. Howell, he said, had admitted 
that they were personal, when he gave 
his reasons for retiring from the Modera- 
tor's chair at the beginning of this trial, 
and had previously recognised it as a per- 
sonal matter over his own signature. Dr. 
Howell, he said had commented with a good 
deal of warmth upon the positions assumed 



in his protest in this regard, and he would 
introduce the opinions of eminent members 
of the Baptist Church — scholars and Doc- 
tors of Divinity — to show that he was jus- 
tified in the course he had pursued in pro- 
testing against this trial, and that Dr. How- 
ell was bound to observe the scriptural 
usage in such cases. 

Elder Graves then read the following 
letter from Rev. N. M. Crawford, D. D., 
Professor in Mercer University, who, he 
said, knew all about the matters complained 
of by Dr. Howell. 

Penfield, October 1st, 1S5S. 

Dear Bro. Graves : Your favor of the 
27th ult., is just received. 

I have looked with much anxiety at 
the proceedings in the Nashville Church, 
so far as I have known them since I passed 
through your city in June last. If the 
statement in the Tennessee Baptist of the 
nature of the charges against you, and the 
manner in which they are brought, is cor- 
rect, I have no hesitancy in saying, that 
the law of Christ has not been observed. 
Bro. Howell and myself are kinsmen, and 
I am his friend; but, in bringing these 
charges against you, I must say, that the 
scriptural requisitions have been violated. 
Bro. Howell knows my opinion on the sub- 
ject, for I expressed it to him last June, in 
an interview which he requested with me. 
Neither do I think that charges ought to 
be brought which concern third parties — 
parties not known to the Church. I say this 
as much for the sake of those parties, nay 
more than for yours. What right has a 
church, to whom I owe no jurisdiction, to 
investigate and pass upon my conduct ? and 
that without my knowledge or consent ? 
If these third parties are ignorant that 
these charges which affect them, are thus 
brought, injustice is done them, by investi- 
gating their conduct in their absence, and 
without their having opportunity to defend 
themselves; for the church will be as much 
judging them as you. On the other hand, 
if these parties have given their congest, 
they are really the parties concerned, and 
are bound to observe the laws of Christ in 
regard to offences. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATE; 



11 



At this distance, and without full in- 
formation, I could give no advice to either 
party, if asked, but one thing I must say, 
Christ's law must govern his church. No 
question of expediency must be considered. 
The moment we quit the rock, we sin. Let 
who will be offended, we must hold to 
Christ's law, every church acting in the 
name of Christ, must act by the law of 
Christ. 

I cannot express to you how much I 
have mourned over things in Nashville. 
May God overrule all, and turn the hearts 
of his children to the things which he ap- 
proves. Your brother in Christ, 

N. M. Crawford. 

Rev. J. R. Graves, Nashville, Tenn. 

Elder Graves stated that he had addressed 
a letter to Dr. Crawford previous to receiv- 
ing the one he had just read, asking his 
opinion upon four points, to which he re- 
ceived a reply which he read as follows : 

Pehnfikld, October 5th, 1858. 

Dear Bro. Graves : — Though reluc- 
tant to take any part in the unhappy strife 
which is distracting our brethren in Nash- 
ville, and which threatens to extend more 
widely, I do not feel at liberty to decline 
answering your questions. 

" Query 1st. < If A. offends B. in com- 
menting upon his (B.'s public acts — his 
speeches or printed articles — does or does 
not the 18th of Matthew make it the duty 
of B. to go to A. and specify his wrong and 
injuries, and seek reconciliation and repar- 
ation of his wrou.fr ? Or would it be equal- 
ly scriptural for B. to employ C. and D. to 
arraign A. before the Church for gross pub- 
lic offences '? " 

In my opinion, the law of Christ (Mat- 
thew xviii. 15, &c.) requires the offended 
brother to seek a private interview first and 
then, if unsuccessful, to seek a second in- 
terview with witnesses. Until these steps 
are taken, he has no right to bring the mat- 
ter before the church, and the church has 
no right to entertain the case. The offended 
party has no right to employ a third person 
to bring the charge. 

"When Christ has given a rule, there is 
no room for discussions of expediency; our 
duty is simply obedience. But it is easy 
to see the wisdom of this rule of Christ. 



The object is to gain oer brother. " If 
he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." 
— Matthew xviii. 15. The failure of the 
first step, in accomplishing this, makes the 
second necessary, and the failure of that 
leads to the third. But in all, the object 
to be sought is not punishment, but correc- 
tion, that the brother may be gained. Even 
in the last resort, the object is not strife 
nor victory, but, if possible, the restoration 
of love and confidence. With this purpose 
in view, how much more likely is a private 
interview to be successful than the impas- 
sioned turmoil which is prone to be exhib- 
ited in a public contest. And if the pub- 
lic discussion must come, how wise the pro- 
vision of two or three witnesses by whom 
every thing can be established. 

"2. Will you state the distinction be- 
tween a private and a public offence, and 
also to which, if not to both, you think the 
18th of Matthew applicable ?" 

It may be difficult to define the distinc- 
tion with a precision that will embrace all 
cases. It does not depend upon the pub- 
licity or secresy with which the act is done, 
but upon the nature of the act itself. The 
comment upon a brother's "public acts — 
his speeches or private articles" — may be 
made in a private conversation, or in a 
newspaper, but this difference in the medi- 
um of communication is not sufficient to 
characterize the offence as public or private. 
If the thing complained of produces per- 
sonal alienation of feeling on account of 
personal injury, it would seem to be a per- 
sonal or private injury, whether done in 
secret or in the presence of a thousand 
witnesses. 

In my opinion, a private interview, &c, 
is not to be sought in public offences. If 
a man has been drunk, the offence is against 
public morals, not against private rights, 
and he may be dealt with without the in- 
tervention of a private interview. 

"3. Suppose a brother refuses to ad- 
dress a brother as Doctor of Divinity, be- 
cause he does not regard him as qualified 
to bear the title, is he for this amenable to 
the Church 1" 

It is a matter of taste and usage how we 
address a man in social intercourse. It is 
an act of courtesy to address an individual 
by his title whether he deserves it or not. 
How many generals, judges, professors, and 



12 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



presidents are there who are unworthy both 
of the office and the title ? But who would 
refuse to address a man by the title on that 
account ? In all frankness, I must say 
that it seems to me to be no mark of a 
Christian spirit either to give or take of- 
fence for so trivial a matter. Certainly I 
should never think of it as making one 
amenable to Church censure ; particularly 
where the offended party had not sought an 
interview to make known his grievance. 

"4. Suppose he has conscientious scruples 
about calling any man Doctor of Divinity, 
(see Matthew xxiii. 9,) and refuses to call 
his pastor D. D., is he for this justly ar- 
raignable before the Church as au of- 
fender?" 

If a brother has conscientious scruples 
about calling a man Doctor, his scruples 
ought to be regarded and no offence taken. 
We should always be very tender of weak 
consciences. 

Thus, my dear brother, I have hastily 
and imperfectly answered your questions. 
I am well aware that my opinions possess 
no weight of authority, but as 3-011 have 
asked them, I give them for what they are 
worth. My heart is sad at the divisions 
among those whom I much regard as hay 
people.' May God, in much mercy, heal 
the wounds of his own cause. 

I intended sending a copy of this letter 
to Brother Howell, but I have been so in- 
terrupted that I cannot, as I am on the 
point of starting to our Association. 

Very truly your friend and brother, 
N. M. Crawford. 

Rev. J. R. Graves, 

Nashville, Tenn. 

Elder Graves said he would now read a 
letter from Rev. J. B. Jeter, who is also a 
Doctor of Divinity, which he regards as 
very conclusive upon the point at issue. 
He read as follows : 

Richmond, Oct. 6, 1858. 

Dear Brother Graves. — Your favor 
of September 29th has been received, and 
I will promptly reply to your queries. 

"1st. If A. offends B. by commenting up- 
on his public acts, his speeches, or public 
statements, does or does not the 18th of 
Matt, make it the duty of B. to go to A. pri- 
vately, and inform him of his offence given, 
and expostulate with him, and if he fails 



in this private way, take brethren, &c. 
Or, would it be equally scriptural for B. to 
employ C. and D. to arraign A. directly be- 
fore the Church for a gross public of- 
fence ? 

" 2nd. Will you give me your views of 
the distinction between a public and a pri- 
vate offence, and if the 18th of Matthew 
applies to both f" 

I deem it better to answer these inqui- 
ries together. The direction given (Matt, 
xviii.) refers, in my opinion, to personal of- 
fences, whether they be private or public. 
''If thy brother shall trespass against thee,' 1 
&c. The rule is not limited to private, but 
embraces all personal offences in whatever 
manner given, and in all such offences no 
appeal should be made to the authority of 
the Church, until the preparatory steps 
shall have been taken, as laid down in Mat- 
thew. 

A public as distinguished from a per- 
sonal offence, is one against society, or good 
morals. If a man gets drunk, or is pro- 
fane, or commits fornication, he does not 
trespass against me, but against Christ — 
against the public — even if the offence 
should be secret, or known only to a few. 
In such a case the offender should be dealt 
with, not according to Mat. xviii., but ac- 
cording to 1 Cor. v., especially ver. 11. 

But there are cases, I think, in which 
an offence may be both personal and j>ublic. 
Suppose a man were to seduce and ruin my 
daughter, he would grievously trespass 
against me, but his offence would be against 
the public also. It would be vain for me to 
deal with him according to 18th of Mat. 
Any reparation which he might offer to 
me, would not meet the end of Church dis- 
cipline. He should be dealt with as was 
the incestuous member of the Church at 
Corinth. And now I am prepared to an- 
swer your first query. 

The offence given by A. to B. might be 
of a character so wanton and unchristian as 
to be not merely a personal, but a public of- 
fence — a reproach to the cause of Christ. 
In this case, a reconciliation between A. 
and B., though in itself desirable, would 
fail to answer the ends of Church disci- 
pline. The offender should be dealt with 
according to 1 Cor. v. Should, however, 
the offence given by A. be of such a nature 
that a reconciliation between him and B. 



TRIAL OF REV J. R. GRAVES. 



13 



would end the difficulty and vindicate the 
character of the Church, then, hv all means, 
B. should pursue the course marked out by 
Mat xviii., and the Church should refuse 
to judge of the case until this course shall j 
have been adopted by B. 

I will now answer question three. 

" Suppose a brother has conscientious ' 
scruples about calling a brother Doctor of) 
Divinity, (see Mat. xviii. 9,) and should, in j 
writing, omit the appellation, is such an I 
omission a crime for which one should be 
arraigned before the Church ? ' " 

Most certainly not. His using the title ' 
might be a sin, but not his omitting to 
use it. Xo man can sin in following his 
"conscientious scruples" if he does not, in 
doing so, violate stronger " conscientious 
scruples." 

I have answered your questions on what 
T deem scriptural principles, without the \ 
slightest reference to the difficulty to which f 
you refer, of which, indeed, I know but i 
little. I should have preferred to be si- 1 
lent, but did not feel at liberty to with- j 
hold my opinions on the principles of i 
Church discipline. I have only to request 
that should you deem it proper to publish 
my letter, that you publish it entire. 
Yours affectionately, 

J. B. Jeter." 

"P. S. — I have deemed it proper, as Dr. 
Howell is interested in the opinions ad- 
vanced in this letter, to forward him a copv 
of it J." 

Elder Graves said that as Dr. Howell 
had endorsed this witness, he thought the : 
matter between them might have been sat- j 
isfactorily settled upon the basis marked 
out by Dr. Jeter. Dr. Howell had said 
that if he (Graves) would have retracted 
the charges he had made against him, that 
would have been satisfactory, and would 
have restored their former relations. He 
had begged Dr. Howell to specify the offen- 
sive remarks in his paper but he would not 
do it. He could not swallow his paper for 
the last five years. Elder Graves con- 
tended that what he had said in the Tenn. 
Baptist of Dr. Howell, was purely in self- 
defence. If Dr. Howell, however, had 



yielded to his importunities, and had spe- 
cified the language of which he complained, 
and both had retracted whatever was con- 
sidered offensive or unkind, this whole mat- 
ter might have been amicably settled with- 
out involving the Church in what he con- 
sidered a purely personal difficulty. 

But, Elder Graves said he would now 
read a letter from the President of George- 
town College, D. R. Campbell, who is a 
learned Doctor of Laws, in further support 
of the position he had assumed. He then 
read as follows : 

Georgetown, Kt., Oct. 7, 1858. 

Dear Brother : — Your favor came to 
hand last night. I have marked its con- 
tents, and reply : 

1. The case, under your first question, 
is strictly subject to Matthew xviii. It is 
simply a personal offence publicly commit- 
ted. 

2. A private offence is a personal one, 
however committed. A public offence is 
not all personal, but may be against the 
Church, as assailing her character, faith, 
practices or interest ; or against religion 
and morality, as being guilty of practices 
which tend to subvert them. As, in such 
cases, the offence is against no individual 
as such, the steps enjoined (Matt, xviii.) 
cannot be taken ; the officers or leading 
men in the Church might, however, in mi- 
nor cases, seek an interview with the of- 
fender previous to his arraignment, with 
the view of reclaiming him by remonstrance, 
and preparing the case for church action. 
Notorious offences of a highly immoral na- 
ture may need only citation and Church 
action. 

3. It is obligatory on no man to address 
another by the title Doctor. He may re- 
frain from it for any reason he chooses. 
He need not — ought not — to be offensive, 
however. It would be too absurd to disci- 
pline any nian for not calling another Doc- 
tor, whether he acts from conscientious 
scruples, or a conviction that the titled is 
without proper qualifications. 

Yours, &c, 

D. R. Campbell. 
Elder Graves stated that he had a letter 
from Rev. Joseph S. Baker, of Florida, 



14 



TRIAL OF BEY. J. B. GRAVES. 



as well as others, to the same point. He And in December following Dr. Howell 
had clearly established, by the authorities j published a letter in the Christian Index, 
he had read, the manner in which this in which this assault upon his (Graves') 
matter ought to have been settled, and he business was repeated in even a more of- 
appealed to the church to dismiss the case, fensive form. All this, Elder Graves said, 
and require the prosecution to first take was done before he had published a line 
the steps as laid down in the law of Christ, I repelling these personal assaults upon him- 
and if he failed to comply with that law, | self and friends, and yet he was charged 
then let them bring the matter before the I with bavins; assailed and traduced Dr. 



church, and deal with him as an offender 
should be dealt with. He contended, 
moreover, that the case, as it now stands, 
makes a false representation of the facts in 
regard to the difficulty between Dr. Howell 
and himself, by representing him as the 
assailing, whereas, he was the assailed 

party. 

Dr. Howell, said Elder Graves, contends 
that this difficulty commenced here in this 
house, when the proposition came up be- 
fore the Convention for the establishment 
of a Sunday School Board, but he thought 
it commenced earlier, and referred to Dr. 
Howell's treatment of him, from the time 
of his coming here up to the night he 
wrote him in regard to his participating in 
a prayer meeting. The course pursued j^^^i^He^rrHowdl We me 



Howell. 

Elder Graves said, Dr. Howell asks what 
he had done to injure him, and replied that 
by his private intercourse, by his speeches 
and letters, running as far back as Februa- 
ry, Dr. Howell had sought to injure not 
only his ministerial character, but his pei- 
sonal standing, assailing his honesty as a 
man. 

Dr. 



toward him, by Dr. Howell, was a subject 
of remark by brethren. From the day 
Dr. Howell came back to this city, his 
course toward him had been most oppres- 
sive and injurious. He had never ex- 
tended to him, (Graves,) the slightest 
courtesy — had never called upon him to 
lead in prayer meeting, or invited him to 
take part in any other religious exercises : 
thus showing that he was not recognized 
either as a minister or a christian in his 
own church. He felt, and all saw the slight 
intended. 

In addition to this, Dr. Howell, in his 
speech to the Sabbath School Convention, 
had made a personal attack upon him 
(Graves) and those associated with him, 
in that it was done to injure him in the 
business by which he made his bread. 



Howell, (interrupting,) demanded 
the proof. 

Elder Graves replied that he had it, and 
would read a statement which had been 
voluntarily tendered him by the author. 
He then read the following : 

"During the month of February or 
March, 1858, and while engaged in the le- 
! gitimate pursuit of my business, in my 

as 



I suppose, a casual call, finding me engaged 
on a drawing for Bev. J. B. Graves. As 
soon as the fact was known, (i. e.,) that 
the drawing was for Bev. Mr. Graves, Dr. 
Howell voluntarily remarked that the said 
Bev. J. B. Graves ' was a dishonest man, 
and could not be trusted.' 

The above is communicated to Bev. J. 
B. Graves voluntarily, in view of the re- 
cent action of the First Church in Nash- 
ville toward that gentleman and brother, 
which I have learned from the columns of 
tho Tennessee Baptist." 

A. B. Hendren, Arch. 

Dr. Howell remarked that he was not 
before the Church for trial, and he hoped 
the Moderator would permit nothing de- 
famatory of his character to be read. He 
denounced the statement of Mr. Hendren 
as untrue. 

Mr. Fuller rose to a point of order. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



15 



Elder Graves. Brother Howell asked 
for proof, and I gave ir. 

Mr. Fuller stated his point of order to 
be, that the parties had wandered from the 
matter before the church. 

The Moderator stated that the parties 
must confine themselves to the question 
under consideration. 

Elder Graves appealed to all present to 
bear witness that he was not here to op- 
pose a fair trial, instituted and conducted 
according to scriptural usage. He was 
ready and willing to submit an investiga- 
tion of his course to such a tribunal. 

He referred to one of the charges 
brought against him, being the leaving of 
"D. D." off Dr. Howell's name in the 
Baptist Register. 

Mr. Fuller, (interrupting,) I wish to ' 
ask Mr. Graves if he did not have a copy : 
of the charges when he wrote the article in 
which he states that, " one of the most | 
stupendous charges was the leaving "D. D." j 
off Dr. Howell's name in the Register ? " j 

Mr. Graves. I understood that to be j 
one of the charges. 

Mr. Fuller. It is very difficult for the i 
gentleman to answer a plain question cate- j 
gorically. I now ask him again, if he did 
not have, in his possession, a copy of the | 
charges when he wrote that article. Le 
him answer yes or no. 

Mr. Graves. I did. 

Dr. Howell said that the opinion of Dr 
Crawford in regard to the difficulty between j 
Elder Graves and himself, was predicated j 
upon what he had seen in the Tennessee 
Baptist, which is an entire misrepresenta- j 
tion of the facts, and therefore, that opin- j 
ion was erroneous ; and this remark would 
apply to all the brethren whose letters 
Elder Graves had read. Their opinions j 
were formed upon ex parte information, and 
as a consequence, they must be errone- 
ous. He imputed nothing wrong to these j 



brethren. They had been imposed upon, 
and, therefore, did him injustice. 

In regard to a settlement of this diffi- 
culty, Dr. Howell stated that up to June 
or July last a withdrawal of the charges 
and misrepresentations made against him, 
in the Tennessee Baptist, would have been 
satisfactory as far as he was himself per- 
sonally concerned. He desired, most sin- 
cerely, to terminate the difficulty, but El- 
der Graves would not withdraw the charges 
made against him, and the consequence 
was that negotiations instituted to 'bring 
about an adjustment failed. 

He perceived that Elder Graves was un- 
der an erroneous impression, in regard to 
the fourth charge. It was his conduct, 
and not that of the brethren mentioned in 
that charge, that this church was to inves- 
tigate. He was charged with abuse and 
misrepresentation of them, and it was the 
duty of the church to try him upon that 
charge. 

Elder Graves, (interrupting,^ asked Dr. 
Howell if he did not clearly intimate in his 
note, and through the committee he sug- 
gested in that note, that if he, [Graves,] 
would retract what he had said about him, 
[Howell,] that the matter would stop 
there ? 

Dr. Howell replied, that the committee 
could answer. 

Elder Graves called on Mr. Scovel to 
state his recollection. 

Mr. Scovel replied that he so understood 
the matter. 

Elder Graves called upon the Moderator 
to say if he did not make this impression 
upon his, [Graves'] mind. 

The Moderator replied that the corres- 
pondence will speak for itself. 

Dr, Howell, [resuming,] said he did not 
remember to have had any conversation 
with Mr. Hendren in regard to Elder 
Graves, and he pronounced his statement 



16 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



untrue, and demanded the proof to sus- 
tain it. 

Mr. Mcintosh inquired whether Elder 
Graves asked for further time to prepare 
for this trial ? If he wants more time, he 



was willing, and had no doubt the church h ear the paper read. 



Dr. Howell moved to adjourn to Wednes- 
day evening at 1\ o'clock. 

Dr. Dayton asked leave to read a short 
paper — a very short paper. 

Mr. Rutland appealed to the church to 



was willing to grant it to him. 

Elder Graves referred to his protest. 
The Moderator then stated the question 



Dr. Howell refused to withdraw his mo- 
tion to adjourn, as it was now midnight. 
The motion being put, was carried, and 



before the church to be : Shall this whole t h e proceedings were closed with prayer by 
matter be thrown out because the scriptural trie Moderator. 

usages in such cases has not been observed? 

Elder Graves demanded the ayes and Mr. Graves' "protest"* has now been giv- 

noes. en with his elaborate arguments to sustain 

Upon a call of the roll the vote stood, ayes it . and as no connec ted review of it could 

41, noes Jb. ' be made under the circumstances in which it 

So the church refused to quash the pro- wa s unexpectedly sprung before the church, 

ceedings. the c onun j ttee f Publication deem it pro- 

r - per to present at this point the following 
review of Mr. Graves' protest, taken from 
the Baptist Standard: 



stood the church by the vote just taken, to 
refuse to accept his protest. He would, 
however, ask that it be spread upon the re- 
cords of the church. 

The Moderator informed Elder Graves 
that the church had employed a reporter to 



DID THE CHURCH DO EIGHT, IN T DECIDING 
TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL. 
The members of the church were satis- 



make a full and impartial report of the pro- fied, that the charges were for offences of 

ceedings of the trial, and Lis protest would such a character, as made the action of the 

appear as a part of that report, and thus go church not only proper, but necessary. It 

upon the record. had been expected, that Mr. Graves would 

Elder Graves repeated his objection to either confess his fault, and make proper 

the course the church had determined to satisfaction to the church, or would make a 

pursue in regard to this trial, and announced defence of his course. If he were inno- 



his withdrawal from the church. He could 
fellowship with this church no longer. 

The Moderator reminded Elder Graves 
that he had repeatedly expressed the opin- 
ion that the Baptist Church was the only 
democratic church on earth, and by the 
polity of this church no member can get 
out of it except by death or exclusion. 

Elder Graves admitted that he still en- 
tertained that opinion of the Baptist church, 
but when the majority of the members of a 



course. 

cent, what should he desire more ardently, 
than to confront his accusers, and vindi- 
cate his character. If, on the other hand, 
he were guilty of the charges brought, a 
christian should desire to atone for his 
fault, and penitence would prompt a prom- 
ise of amendment. 

But Mr. Graves, as has been seen, takes 
neither course. He pleads to the indict- 
ment. He occupies a position similar tc 
that of a man, who, accused of an offence 



church trample upon the law of Christ they before the courts of the country, pleads 
become a faction, and are no longer a I that the offence charged in the indictment, 
church. | even if admitted to be true, is not of such 



TRIAL OF REV J. R. GRAVES. 



17 



a nature, as to bring his case within the 
jurisdiction of the court. So Mr. Graves 
alleges, that the offences with whieh he is 
charged, are not of such a character, even 
if true, as to give the church jurisdiction 
of the matter, until the previous steps, re- 
quired in the 18th chapter of Matthew, 
had been taken. He has presented all the 
arguments by which he endeavors to sus- 
tain his position, in a protest carefully 
written out, and in a prepared speech, af- 
terwards given to the public in the Ten- 
nessee Baptist. This protest, and the argu- 
ments of this speech, have now been laid 
before our readers. We have presented 
all that has been said, or that can be said, 
on that side of the question. 

It is but just, that the other side of this 
question should be presented also, so that 
the public may be able to decide, with all 
the arguments before it, whether the of- 
fences charged against J. R. Graves, are 
of such a character, as to render it the duty 
of the church to proceed with the trial. 

STATEMENT OP THE QUESTION. 

Mr. Graves maintains iu his protest and 
speech, that in cases of private offence, the 
party offended should take the steps re- 
quired in the 18th chapter of Matthew. 
We take no issue with Mr. Graves on this 
point. We say the same. Both parties 
agree that i*i cases of private personal of- 
fences, the steps required, Matthew 18th, 
should be taken, before the matter is brought 
before the church. But Mr. Graves fur- 
ther maintains, that he is charged with of- 
fences of this character. Here we take 
issue. We maintain that he is charged 
with public offences. 

If Mr. Graves is charged in the indict- 
ment with private personal offences, it is 
admitted that the church had no right to 
take action in the case, until the steps re- 
quired, Matthew 18th, had been taken 
But if, on the other hand, he is charged in 

9 



the indictment with public sins, his case 
should be dealt with according to first Corin- 
thians, 5th chapter, and the church did 
right in proceeding with the trial. 

This is a fair statement of the question. 

We might, in discussing this question, 
present the evidence, and prove that J. R. 
Graves is guilty as charged; but this would 
be going boyond the question in issue. 
The question we have now to discuss, is not 
whether Mr. Graves is guilty or innocent 
of the charges brought against him; but, 
whether he is charged with public sins, or 
private personal offences. We have now 
only to look at the charges brought against 
Mr. Graves. Whether they are sustained 
or not, will appear in the course of the 
trial. We have no desire to prejudice the 
public mind, by now entering on a discus- 
sion of the guilt or innocence of Mr. 
Graves. Nor is it necessary to our pur- 
pose. 

If a man is charged with conduct con- 
stituting a public sin, when he has only 
been guilty of conduct which constitutes a 
personal offence, it is evident that the 
charge cannot be sustained upon trial. 
But this is no reason why he should not be 
tried, tout a reason why he should be tried. 
To illustrate : a man is indicted for mur- 
der with malice aforethought, when, in 
fact, his offence is only manslaughter. 
What is the consequence ? The charge 
cannot be sustained, and the man must be 
cleared. But he would have no right to 
protest against being tried for murder, on 
the plea that his offence was not murder, 
but manslaughter. He must go into trial, 
and establish the fact. So in the present 
ease. If J. R- Graves is charged with a 
public sin, when his conduct is only a pri- 
vate offence, he has no right to protest, on 
this ground, against being tried. It is the 
very reason he should be tried; for if he 
can establish the fact, it is evident that he 
I must be acquitted. An accused party can 



18 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



never refuse to be tried, on the ground 
that he is charged with offences, of which 
he is not guilty. The object of a trial is 
to ascertain this very fact. 

The only ground, on which an accused 
party can protest against being tried, is, 
that he is charged with cm offence of which 
the court has no jurisdiction. For instance : 
in the State of Kentucky, if A entrusts 
property to the care of B, and B sells it 
and keeps the money, this is not theft, but 
a breach of trust; and B is not subject to 
prosecution by a criminal court, but suit 
must be brought against him for the value 
of the property. Now suppose B were in- 
dicted in a criminal court, for selling this 
property entrusted to his care, and keeping 
the money. He might protest against be- 
ing tried by the criminal court. He would 
say, I acknowledge the fact with which I 
am charged; but I am not charged with a 
criminal action. Admitting all to be true, 
this court has no right to try me. My 
case does not come under its jurisdiction, 
but under the jurisdiction of a civil court. 

So in the present case. If Mr. Graves 
protests against being tried, it must be 
upon the ground, that he might admit the 
charges to be true, and still he would be 
guilty only of a private personal offence: in 
other words, that he is charged only with 
a private personal offence. 

It is evident that we can determine this 
question, only by reference to the indict- 
ment. If Mr. Graves is charged in the 
indictment with conduct, which constitutes 
a personal offence only, his protest is sus- 
tained. If on the other hand, he is 
charged with offences which constitute a 
public sin, then his protest falls to the 
ground, and the church did right in pro- 
ceeding with the trial. 

Does the indictment charge Mr. 
Graves with conduct, which amounts 

ONLY TO A PRIVATE PERSONAL OFFENCE, 



OR WITH CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES A 
PUBLIC SIN ? 

It is as follows : 

THE INDICTMENT. 

We, the undersigned members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral, 
and unchristian conduct, in four distinct 
cases as follows : 

First, in that he has sought to bring upon 
R. B. C Howell, the pastor of said church., 
reproach and injury, and thus to destroy 
his character and influence in the South- 
west, by forcing him into collision with 
Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Corresponding 
Secretary of the Bible Board, and now one 
of his associate editors, through the publi- 
cation in his said paper, of various false 
and malicious representations. 

Secondly, in that he has endeavored to 
distract and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor and four of 
its deacons, and several others of its influ- 
ential membei-s, which he has labored to 
produce, by numerous inflammatory articles, 
published in his paper. 

TJu'rdly, in that he has uttered and pub- 
lished in his said paper, against R. B. C. 
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry 
foul and atrocious libels. 

Fourthly, in that he has, at various times, 
attacked, slandered, and abused ministers 
and brethren, of high character, belonging 
to our denomination, throughout the coun- 
try, in his said paper. • 
[Signed.] 

J. C. Darden. 
Charles A. Fuller. 

A fifth count was added by brethren 
Scott and Nelson, in which he was charged 
with falsehood in nine specifications. 

The indictment charges " grossly immoral 
and unchristian conduct," not personal of- 
fences. 

A DILEMMA, 

Now Mr. Graves is in this dilemma. If 
guilty of "grossly immoral and unchristian 
conduct," as charged in the indictment, 
then, such conduct is a proper subject of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



19 



church action, and he had no right to pro- 1 
test against a trial. If he pleads not guil- 
ty as charged in the indictment, still he 
had no right, on this plea, to protest against . 
being tried, but was bound to go into trial, j 
and establish his innocence. He may choose ■ 
either horn of the dilemma. Either is fa- ; 
tal to his protest, If guilty the church 1 
has aright to try members guilty of " gross- 
ly immoral and unchristian conduct." If 
not guilty, who ever heard before, of a man j 
refusing to be tried, because he was not guil- 
ty of the conduct charged in the indict- 
ment? What would be thought of a 
prisoner at the bar of justice, protesting 
against being tried by the court, on the ; 
ground that he was innocent ! ! Did any 
advocate ever enter such a plea ? Was such I 
a plea ever made before any tribunal ? No; j 
it was left for J. R. Graves on the 12th i 
day of October, 1858, to enter such a plea ! 
for the first time in the annals of the world, 

This simple statement is fatal to Mr. 
Graves' first ground of protest. 

But we will go further. We will main- 
tain, not only that he is charged with con- ; 
duct which justified the church in trying 
him under the indictment, but further, that 
the conduct specified in the counts, is of a 
character, which fully sustains the charge 
of the indictment of "grossly immoral and 
unchristian conduct." We refer the reader 
to the counts under the indictment. 

THE CONDUCT SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST TAVO 
COUNTS — STIRRING UP STRIFE. 

The conduct specified in the first count — 
his seeking to stir up strife between the 
Pastor and Elder Dayton — is certainly 
" grossly immoral and unchristian conduct," 
Of the same character is the conduct spec- 
ified in the second count, where he is charged j 
with laboring to produce a conflict between 
the pastor and four of the deacons of the 
church. Will Mr. Graves, or any of his 
friends maintain, that stirring up strife 



among brethren is not "immoral and un- 
christian conduct?" Will he maintain 
that this conduct is only an offence against 
the individuals between whom strife is 
raised ? What would be thought of an in- 
dividual, who in one of our towns, was la- 
boring to get two men into conflict ? Would 
his conduct be an offence only against the 
individuals concerned, or would it be an 
offence against society, and the public laws ? 
Most undoubtedly the latter. If he suc- 
ceeded in his efforts, and in the conflict one 
of the parties were killed, he would be con- 
sidered an accessary to the deed, and would 
be punished by the laws. And can Mr. 
Graves maintain before an intelligent com- 
munity, that this endeavor to stir up strife 
with which he is charged, is not an offence 
against the law of God, but only a private 
offence against individuals ? Yet such is 
his position. In his speech as published in 
the Tennessee Baptist, (which b} r the way is 
by no means the speech which he delivered 
before the church,) he maintains, that to stir 
up strife between Bro. Howell and Elder 
Dayton, is only a personal offence against 
brother Howell: and that to stir up strife 
between brother Howell and four of the 
deacons of the church, is only a personal 
offence against brother Howell and those 
four deacons ! We cannot account for this 
opinion of Mr. Graves. We must believe 
that it is his opinion. It can only be ac- 
counted for as an instance of the power of 
habit upon the moral sense. 

Is it necessary for us to go into an argu- 
ment to prove that stirring up strife is sin- 
ful ? If strife is sinful, to stir up strife is 
equally sinful. To prove that strife is sin- 
ful we need only refer to Romans xiii, 13; 
Gal. v. 20; James iii. 14-16; Second 
Corinthians sii. 20. It is needless to 
to go into an argument, to prove that stirring 
up strife is a sin against God. We will 
quote a few, out of many passages from the 
word of God to prove it. " Why dost thou 



20 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



show me iniquity and cause me to behold 
grievance ? for spoiling and violence are be- 
fore me : and there are, that raise up strife, 
and contention. Therefore the law is 
slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: 
for the wicked doth compass about the 
righteous ; therefore wrong judgment pro- 
ceeded." Habakkuk i. 3, 4. " He loveth 
transgression that loveth strife" Prov. xvii. 
17. " Wherefore have we fasted, say they, 
and thou seest not ? wherefore have we af- 
flicted our soul, and thou takest no knowl- 
edge ? * * Behold ye fast for strife and 
debate and to smite with the fist of wick- 
edness." Is. Iviii. 3, 4. These passages will 
suffice. In the new Testament, while strife 
is condemned, and the opposite duties are 
inculcated, no law is made against the stirr- 
ing up of strife, for the same reason that the 
Remans refused to make a law against par- j 
ieide. The crime was so opposed to every | 
dictate of filial piety, as to render prohibi- 
tion unnecessary. 

This is the offence with which J. R. 
(J raves is charged in the first two counts. 
We leave it with a candid public to decide, 
whether this offence is a private personal 
offence against the brethren thus attempted 
to be estranged, or an offence against Christ 
and his cause. 

The conduct charged in the next two 
counts comes under the general head of 

RAILING. 

In the fourth count, he is charged with 
having attacked, slandered, and abused, for 
years past, various brethren throughout the 
country. The third count charges his more 
recent offence, of uttering and publishing 
libels against the pastor of the First Baptist 



Chi 



Throwing aside legal tei-ms, this 



conduct is that specified in scripture lan- 
guage as " railing." 

Is railing sinful, or is it merely a private 
personal offence ? Let us appeal to the in- 
spired word. " Finally be ye all of one 



mind, having compassion one of another; 
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous ; 
not rendering evil for evil, or railing for 
railing ; but contrarywise blessing." 1st 
Peter iii : 8-9. Railing is here placed in 
the same catalogue with returning evil for 
evil. It belongs to the same class with re- 
venge. We ar.e told that " Michael, the 
archangel, when contending with the devil, 
he disputed about the body of Moses, durst 
not bring against him a railing accusation, 
but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 9. 
Why durst he not ? Was it not because God 
allows none of his creatures to bring railing 
accusation against any ? And if an arch- 
angel, in the fear of God, durst not bring 
railing accusation against a fallen spirit of 
darkness, how shall frail imperfect man 
dare to rail against his fellow ? In the days 
of the Apostles, no argument would have 
been necessary on this point. But alas 
for earth ! error in religious truth has filled 
the church with its offspring, discord and 
contention. And, in zeal for truth, the 
servants of God have too often forgotten 
what spirit they are of! The Christian 
world has become so accustomed to see strife 
and railing between the advocates of oppo- 
sing views, that the great cardinal precepts 
of Christianity — love to all — meekness to 
opponents — and railing against none — have 
to be reasserted and proved ! 

Some may admit that railing against an 
opponent is wrong, and much more railing 
against brethren, while they think it is only 
a personal offence. The apostle Paul in- 
structs us on this point. In his 1st Epis- 
tle to the Corinthians, 5th chapter, he says, 
" Now I have written to you not to keep 
company, if any man that is called a broth- 
er be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idola- 
ter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extor- 
tioner, with such an one, no not to eat." 
The evident meaning of this passage is, that 
these characters are to be excluded from the 
church. His meaning is fully explained in 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



21 



the loth verse, " Therefore put away from 
among yourselves that wicked per- 
son." Here the apostle ranks the railer 
with the fornicator, the idolater, and the 
drunkard ; and directs the church to deal 
with him in the same manner. Is the 
drunkard — is the idolater — is the fornicator 
guilty of public sin ? Then so is the rail- 
er. Inspiration makes no difference be- 
tween them. We dare make none. Do we 
want more evidence ? Turn to the 6th chap- 
ter of 1st Corinthians, 9th and 10th verses. 
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
adulterer-;, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor 
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor 
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of 
God." The word here rendered readers, 
- the same word elsewhere ren- 
dered railer. The word denotes a person 
using abusive language. Here the railer 
is classed with the vilest characters ; and it 
is affirmed of him, that he shall not inher- 
it the kingdom of God. Why can he not 
inherit the kingdom of God ? The only 
reason which can be assigned, is that his 
conduct is a sin against God, and is hateful 
in his sight. Has uot the church a right 
to try a member who is charged with this 
sin against God ? Most assuredly. It is 
not only her right ; it is her duty to inves- 
tigate such charges, when brought against 
any of her members. 

The offence specified in the 5th count, 
added by brethren Scott and Xelson, is 

WILFUL AND DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD. 

* Under this count there are nine specifi- 
cations of falsehood. It needs no argument 
to prove, that the conduct charged in this 
count is immoral and unchristian. Or will 
it be maintained, that deliberate falsehood 
is also a personal offence ? 

This is the conduct charged against J. R. 
Graves. He is charged in the indictment 
with "grossly immoral and unchristian con- 



This charge is sustained in five 
The conduct specified in the first 



I duct." 
counts. 
two counts, is 

STIRRING LP STRIFE BETWEEN BRETHREN. 

The conduct charged in the next two 
' counts, is 

RAILING AGAINST HIS BRETHREN. 

The conduct specified in the fifth count, is 

) "WILFUL AND DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD. 

NdW we put this question to the candid 
reader : if these counts can be established 
in trial, do they not sustain the charge in 
the indictment, of "grossly immoral and 
1 unchristian conduct ?" If stirring up strife 
between brethren — if railing upon brethren 
for years together — if wilful and deliber- 
ate falsehood, do not constitute immoral con- 
duet, we must confess, that we know not 
what does. This is the conduct charged 
upon J. R. Graves, yet he maintains that 
he is charged only with private offences 
against individuals ! 

We are not now discussing the question 
whether Mr. Graves is guilty of these of- 
fences. This is not the proper time forsuch 
a discussion. Xor is it necessary for our 
present purpose, to establish his guilt. It 
is only necessary for us to show that he is 

CHARGED "WITH OFFENCES which constitute 

public sin. This has been done. And now 
it matters not whether he is guilty, as 
charged, or not. In either case the church 
had jurisdiction of the cause, and he was 
bound to go into trial. Wherever a person 
is charged before any tribunal with conduct 
of which that tribunal has jurisdiction, he 
j can never refuse to be tried by that tribunal, 
whether he is innocent or guilty. Inno- 
cence does not exempt him from trial. It 
never exempts from trial before any court. 
How then could it exempt Mr. Graves from 
trial? 

The first ground of Mr. Graves' protest 
has now been examined, and it has been 
found wholly insufficient to establish the po- 



22 



TEIAL OF KEY. J. E. GRAVES. 



sition, that the church should not go on 
with the trial. The assumption upon which 
it rests, viz : That he is charged only with 
persoual offences, is found to be incorrect. 
It has been established that he was charged 
with sinful conduct, which gave the church 
entire jurisdiction of the case. 

THE BEGOND GROUND OF PROTEST. 

Mr. Graves' second ground of protest is, 
that he is the offended, and not the offend- 
ing party. 

It is unnecessary here to enter upon a 
discussion of the fact alleged. Whether 
this be true or not will appear in the course 
of the trial. 

For a discussion of the issue presented 
in this ground of protest, wc refer the read- 
er to the article in [another page, headed 
"The 18th chapter of Matthew." 

It is only necessary to remark in this 
connection, that even if the fact alleged 
were admitted^ it furnishes no ground for 
his refusing to be tried. This point has 
been already discussed in the examination 
of the first ground of protest. It is a plea 
of innocence, which as has been seen, fur- 
nishes an additional reason why the trial 
should proceed. 

T1IK THIRD GROUND OF PROTEST. 

The third ground of protest is, that the 
church has no jurisdiction of the conduct 
specified in the fourth count. The reason 
alleged is, the persons assailed are not mem- 
bers of the First Church. It seems suffi- 
cient answer to this, that the church is not 
claiming jurisdiction over those brethren. 
It claims jurisdiction over the conduct of Mr. 
Graves only, who was a member of the 
church, and subject to her jurisdiction. 

The principle maintained in this ground 
of protest is, that a church has no right to 
try a member for any wrongs which he in- 
flicts on persons without her pale. The 
fallacy of this principle will appear upon 
brief reflection. If a member of a church 



falls upon an unconverted person, and in- 
flicts upon him bodily injury, has not the 
church the right to try him for his con- 
duct ? Suppose the person beaten is a 
member of a sister church, has not the 
church still a right to investigate the con- 
duct of her own member ? The true posi- 
tion is this : When a church member is 
charged with unchristian conduct towards 
any one, no matter whom, it is the duty of 
the church to investigate the charge. 

FOURTH GROUND OF PROTEST. 

Mr. Graves' fourth ground of protest (he 
erroneously styles it the third) is, that the 
specifications are not sufficiently definite. 
It was intended to make the specifications 
sufficiently definite to enable Mr. Graves to 
know of what he was charged. If, howev- 
er, they were not sufficiently definite, this 
would have been ground for Mr. Graves to 
ask for delay in order to prepare his de- 
fence. He might also have properly de- 
manded that the specifications should bo 
made more definite. ' All this, doubtless, 
would have been granted him. The church 
had postponed th« trial once, and, no doubt, 
would have done so again, had he requested 
it. It was disposed to act towards Mr. 
Graves with the utmost consideration and 
fairness, and would have given him all the 
time he might have needed to prepare his de- 
fence. Indeed Bro. Mcintosh proposed to do 
so. He asked Mr. Graves if he desired more 
time, and expressed the willingness he felt, 
as did the members of the church, to grant 
it. But Mr. Graves, in answer, only re- 
ferred to his protest ; thus, evidently show- 
ing that his desire was to evade a trial al- 
together. The fact, here specified, would 
have justified Mr. Graves in asking for 
more definite specifications, and in demand- 
ing time to prepare a defence ; but it does 
not justify him in refusing to be tried 
at all. 

We have thus examined the protest of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



23 



Mr. Graves, and find it utterly groundless. 
Not one objection -which he urges can be 
ied. 
We submit the question, whether the 
church did right /a her decision to proceed 
with the trial of J. R. Graves, to the judg- 
ment of a candid public. 

THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER OF MATTHEW. 

One of the great ends of the christian 
;. is thai the members of Christ shall 
live together in the unity of the spirit, 
and the bonds of peace, bound and knit 
together in love. Every departure from 
this state of feeling is a departure from the 
will of Christ. There should be no con- 
tentions between brethren. 

But in the present depraved condition 
of our natures, offences will be conceived, 
with, or without cause. Hence, the Divine 
author of our religion has, in this precept, 
provided a rule of action for such cases, 
that, by its observance, wounded feelings 
may be healed. 

AVhen a christian conceives himself in- 
jured by a brother, his carnal nature 
prompts retaliation. But this must not be. 
The law of Christ is plain. He must go 
to the offeuding brother and tell him his 
fault If the injury was unintentional, an 
opportunity is thus given for explanation. 
If this eommano! were complied with, 
there could be no heart burnings among 
brethren. The letting in of the waters — 
the beginning of strife, would be stopped, 
and the church would enjoy perfect harmo- 
ny, and peace, and love. How wise this 
provision to preserve the church from 
disturbance and division. How beautifully 
it harmonizes with all the principles of 
Christianity, and how perfect its unison 
with the love, which should pervade every 
christian's heart. The christian, upon re- 
ceiving offence, feels no revenge, or should 
feel none. He is wounded, he is grieved; 
and his first emotion is to go to the brother 



whom he loves, who has thus trespassed 
against him, and remonstrate with him, 
not with harshness, but with regret. The 
offending brother is melted, reparation is 
cheerfully made, and their friendship and 
love is more firmly rooted, by the blast 
which has shaken it. It was obedience to 
this command, which promoted that har- 
mony, which was the strength of the early 
churches of Christ, and which bore a wit- 
ness of the truth of the gospel among the 
heathen, who said: ''How these christians 
love one another." 

The object of this precept is evidently 
to prevent alienation between brethren. 
The only construction which can be placed 
upon it, limits its application to the begin- 
ning of estrangement. Its design was to 
prevent this estrangement from breaking 
out into an open rupture. As soon as a 
christian feels a sentiment of alienation 
from his brother, at that moment this pre- 
eept applies to him. He must let this feel- 
ing go no further. This estrangement 
must be healed. But how ? Go to thy 
brother. Seek an explanation. If he hear 
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. The 
difficulty is ended. But if he will not hear 
thee, go to him again; repeat your remon- 
strance in the presence of one or two wit- 
nesses. If he still will not hear thee, tell 
it to the church. Here your personal con- 
nection with the matter ends. You tell it 
to the church. Your cause is in the hands 
of the church. It must demand the proper 
reparation. If it is not given, the offend- 
ing and obstinate brother must be ex- 
cluded. 

Here it will be seen that no provision is 
made for the offended brother to retaliate. 
Such conduct is opposed to the genius of 
Christianity. Christianity allows no retal- 
iation, no feeling of revenge. Without 
this provision of Matthew 18th, there would 
be a want of harmony in the system. 
Trespasses could not be resented, and our 



24 



TEIAL OF REV. J. E. GRAVES. 



religion would present no means of redress. 
But this precept presents a method, in beau- 
tiful harmony with the spirit of the gospel, 
by which all wrong may be redressed — all 
wounded feelings healed. 

But has the offended brother the right 
to cherish resentment in his heart, without 
taking the course marked out in this pre- 
cept? Did the Savior leave it optionary 
with his people to obey this command, if 
they chose, or to retaliate, if they prefered 
to do so ? The command is positive, and 
disobedience to it is as sinful, as the trans- 
gression of any other command. When- 
ever the state of things which it contem- 
plates has occurred, obedience is enjoined 
as a duty. The church is the proper tri- 
bunal to enforce obedience to this, as well 
as the ether commandments of God. 

Then, if the offended brother retaliates, 
and attempts to injure the brother with 
whom he is offended, he is doubly guilty. 
In the first place, he has transgressed this- 
command. In the second place, he has 
violated all the principles of peace, and 
love, inculcated by our Savior. His con- 
duct is no longer a private offence against 
an individual, but a public sin against 
Christ. He has chosen to do wrong, when 
Christ has directed him how to do right. 
He has avenged himself, when Christ di- 
rected him to endeavor to gain his brother. 
As a sin against Christ and his law, the 
church should take cognizance of his con- 
duct. 

He cannot now shelter himself behind 
the 18th chapter of Matthew. The state 
of things, to which this precept was in- 
tended to npply, is past. He has brought 
about the state of things, which it was de- 
signed to prevent. He has, himself, tram- 
pled upon the precept of the 18th chapter 
of Matthew, and ho cannot now raise it 
from the dust, to interpose it as a shield, 
between him and the condemnation. of the 
church. 



Our Savior gave this precept to prevent 
the beginning of contention, but he has, in 
the indulgence of unhallowed passions, 
entered upon contention. 

Laws should be interpreted by the de- 
sign of the law-giver. They should never 
be wrested to a different design. If this 
precept was given to prevent the beginning 
of contention, by promoting a reconcilia- 
tion; when contention is begun, it no longer 
applies. If it was made to prevent con- 
tention, it was not made to shield the con- 
tentious man. On the contrary it con- 
demns him. And if his conduct, in viola- 
ting this precept, should receive the con- 
demnation of the church, how can he 
claim, that this precept forbids the church 
to judge him, for violating the other com- 
mands of our Savior. 

Paul writes to the Corinthians, with re- 
gard to a brother, who is a railer. Does he 
say that the brother, against whom he thus 
rails, must go to him, and remonstrate with 
him according to Matthew 18th ? No. 
He says to the church, "put away from 
among yourselves that wicked person." 
This must be received as an explanation 
of the precept of our Savior, as understood 
by the Apostle. It evidently limits the 
application of the precept to the beginning 
of estrangement, and shows that whenever 
that precept is violated, and a brother rails 
upon one with whom he is offended, the 
church should take cognizance of his con- 
duct. 



Wednesday Evening, Oct. 13. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

The proceedings were opened by reading a 
portion of Scripture by the Moderator, and 
prayer by Rev. Mr. Woolfolk. 

The reading of the minutes of the previous 
meeting was dispensed with. 

On motion, the first count in the charge of 
grossly immoral and unchristian conduct 



TEIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



2-3 



preferred against Elder J. R. Graves, was 
taken up and read as follows : 

We. the undersigned, members of the 
Eirst Baptist Church. Xashville. Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. E. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the Editors of the 
w ith grossly immoral and 
unchristian conduct, in that he has sought to 
bring upon R. B. O.Howell, the Pastor of 
said church, reproach and injury, and thus 
to destroy his character and influence in the 
Southwest, by forcing him into collision 
with Rev. A. G Dayton, late Correspond- 
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now 
one of his associate editors, through the 
publication in his said paper of various false 
and malicious representations. 

Mr. Fuller stated that the evidence to sus- 
tain this count, was to be found in various 
numbers of the Tennessee Baptist, which he 
read as follows : 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13, 1858. 
" There is manifestly a systematic attempt to 
cripple down the Secretary of the Bible 
Board, on the part of anti landmark men, and 
editors. "We allude to what has appeared in 
the journal from his associate editors, and the 
cour.-e of a portion of the Baptist press, and 
the anti-landmark portion of the Board, and 
recently heralded to the world by " A mem- 
her of the Board," and not the least indicative 
sign, the allusion to brother Dayton as Cor- 
responding Secretary in Elder Howell's letter 
to the Index, in which he virtually — to all 
intents and purposes — attaints brother Dav- 
ton for malfeasance in office by an insinuation. : 
We allude to this sentence : " But we are 
told. by the newspapers that mis very brother 
is himself rapidly preparing Sunday School 
books, and that several will be ready, and | 
ictually presented to 'The Union' in April 
next, at Americus, in your State. Very well — 
let him prepare them, if the Bible Board will 
allow their Corresponding Secretary to de- 
vote nearly all his time to writing books, 
and instead of presenting them to ' The Un- 
ion,' let him send them to the Southern Bap- 
tist Publication Society. If they are such 
books as the Baptists approve, that Society I 
will publish them, and for as small a price 
and in as good style as the work can be done 
elsewhere in the South or South-Wes:." 

" Does brother Howell mean to say that 
the Corresponding Secretary has neglected, j 



or may probably neglect his official duties, to 
i write books \ If not, why say if the Board 
: will allow him to devote nearly all his time 
to writing books i In any light, the impres- 
sion left is very bad, and casts suspicion upon 
the Secretary, reflecting too nearly a senti- 
ment once before published in this citv, that 
no man should approve. A.11 these things are 
calculated to make the position of the Cor- 
responding Secretary uncomfortable, destroy 
his peace, and paralyze his influence and use- 
fulness. We have no doubt but that an anti- 
landmark Secretary would be preferred by 
that part of the Board that adopted the late 
report of a committee. Brother Dayton can 
easily be driven from the Board, and will cer- 
tainly be by this treatment, but will the 
Board supply his place with a better man ? 
He [Mr. Dayton] has done too much good 
. to be let alone. He is enjoying too much of 
the love, and attracting too much of the at- 
: tention of Baptists not to be compelled to 
suffer the penalty, that superiority or great 
usefulness is ever doomed to pay," 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, Feb. 20, 1858. 
{i That part of Brother Howell's letter that 
most deeply pains us, is the sentence that 
casts that most unkind and cruel suspicion 
upon brother Dayton. Unless it does by im- 
plication charge him with having spent most 
of his time, or that he is now spending, or 
that the probabilities are that he is about to 
spend most of his time writing books, we can- 
not gather brother Howell's intent in penning 
it. He must have known that it would deep- 
ly wound brother Dayton's feelings, mar his 
peace, and make him uncomfortable. He 
must have known that the sentence was ad- 
mirably calculated to excite suspicion in the 
minds of all over whom he had any influ- 
ence. He [Howell] doubtless knew that such 
a paragraph as this had been penned and 
published by a member of the Bible Board. 
Surely brother H. nor any man can think it 
strange that brother D. should feel sensitive 
to see such an insinuation reproduced by the 
President of the Bible Board." 

Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 45. July IT, 1858. 
" Our readers will find in this column this 
week a fine specimen of the sentiments of 
not the Baptist 'rank and file only,' but of 
a number of the leading minds of the denom- 
ination from Maryland to Florida, and Vir- 
ginia to the furtheres: Texas." 

Among these "leading minds" see the fob 



26 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



lowing from an article signed " Alabama:" 
" Where is Tustin's influence in South Caro- 
lina? Where are Hillman's and his friend 
H. in Tennessee ? Where is Henderson's in 
Alabama? Not one of them has a tithe of 
the influence in the heart of their territory 
Jthat they h<'d before they began this war on 
brother Graves and his paper. 'They have 
made a pit, and digged it, and are fallen into 
the ditch which they have made. Their mis- 
chief has returned upon their own heads, 
and their violent dealing has come down up- 
on their own pate.'" 

The testimony to sustain this count in the 
charge against Elder Graves having been 
read, 

The Moderator stated that Elder Graves 
would now be afforded an opportunity to of- 
fer any counter testimony he desired. 

No testimony being offered by the de- 
fendant, 

The Moderator said the prosecution would 
now be heard. 

Dr. Howell said : 
Brother Moderator and Brethren : 

It has become my duty, on various ac- 
counts, to address you, on this first count in 
the trial of Rev. J. R. Graves, now pending 
before you. I do so, not because it concerns 
me more than it does many other brethren, 
here and elsewhere, but because I am proba- 
bly more familiar with the details than any 
other member of the church, and at the re- 
quest of the brethren who are the prosecu- 
tors, in this, and the three following counts. 

I should do injustice to my feelings, did I 
not here declare, that the necessity which has 
forced brethren to bring this charge before j 
you, with its several counts, and their speci- 
fications, and profs, against a professed broth- , 
er, a member of this beloved church, pains j 
me most deeply. But however painful to us, 
it has become indispensably necessary in or-! 
derto protect the church, to protect your pas- ! 
tor, and to protect other brethren, at home ! 
and abroad, from his assaults now so long \ 
continued, and which give no indications that 
they will soon cease. Would that this last i 
resort could have been avoided. No alter- 
native however, was left you. Every scriptu- j 
ral measure was resorted to in vain. You 
indeed, went even further than the scriptures 
demanded. Every practicable compromise j 



was proposed to him. In his private notes, 
and in his paper, he would, as I am now com- 
pelled to think, for effect merely, "entreat to 
be made sensible of his wrong doing," pro- 
testing that he " was ready to do whatever 
truth and religion required." But when 
brought to the point he invariably, and per- 
sistently refused to retract, or disavow any of 
his false and injurious charges against breth- 
ren, to apologize, or to do any thing else, but 
continue to assault and defame them. The 
more solicitous our private efforts to restrain 
him, the more reckless grew from week to 
week, his attacks. All this you know, as well 
as I do, to be strictly true. You could do no 
more. Longer forbearance would have been 
a sin against God, and your brethren. The 
cause was bleeding at every pore. Every 
principle of the gospel of Christ demanded 
that your indulgence should terminate ; that 
he should be arraigned before you without 
further delay ; you yielded to the dire neces- 
sity which he forced upon you. 

With other brethren in this church, and 
out of it, I myself, it seems, have come in for 
a large share of his abuse and defamation. 
Why, may I ask, brother Moderator, should 
Mr. Graves evince so much bitterness towards 
me particularly ? Indulge a few statements 
in this connection ; and if I detain you some- 
what, before we enter more directly upon the 
count in the indictment to be considered to- 
night, I shall, I am sure, be pardoned. 

I have now been a member of the Baptist 
church about thirty-seven years. During all 
that time I have sought earnestly, and hith- 
erto with almost perfect success to " live in 
peace with all men." With Mr. Graves par- 
ticularly, I hackdetermined to have no con- 
flict. This was my firm purpose. For this 
conciliatory course, I had various reasons, to 
some of which I may not improperly refer. 
In him I had taken a special interest, and 
toivards me, I must think, had he been a man 
of ordinary temper of mind, he would under 
his circumstances, have thought, and acted 
very differently. When he first came to this 
city, a stranger, and friendless, I received him, 
as he must himself, even now confess, with all 
kindness. He possessed as I thought, talents 
which with earnest piety, humility, industry, 
and ordinary prudence, might render him an 
eminently useful laborerin the cause of Christ. 
We were in this state, at that time, as indeed 
we are even now, exceedingly destitute of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



27 



minister?. I was, perhaps too strongly, de- 
sirous of increasing their numbers, and there- 
fore too ready to extend my confidence to auy 
one who claimed to preach the gospel of 
Christ. Knowing nothing of his antecedents' 
except that I found his name as an instructor 
in the catalogue of a school in Kragsville, 
Ohio, I introduced him, as I must now admit, 
prematurely, and imprudently, to our people 
in this city, and throughout the country. I 
aided to the extent of ray ability, in procur 
ing for him here, patronage as a teacher. As 
a means of enlarging the sphere of his iaflu 
ence, and usefulness, I sought for him, and 
success fully, the pastorship, then vacant, of 
the Second Church in this citv. And when 



him, or them, pay for it a single dollar. These 
facts may seem strange to brethren who have 
seen the statement so frequently of late re- 
peated in the Tennessee Baptist, that it was 
at that very time, five or six thousand dollars 
in debt! Atone time it is declared that the 
paper was in debt when it left my hands five 
thousand dollars ; at another six thousand, 
and at another enough to " sink four such pa- 
pers." All this is asserted in its columns, 
when Mr. Graves must have known that it 
owed no man a cent. .Should Mr. Graves 
deny the truth of this statement, I shall bring 
such proofs of its truth as no man in this city 
will ever dispute. We made the paper without 
debt, a gift, and we gave our books at prime 



in that office, he so signally failed, as some of cost, to Messrs. Graves and Sbankland, in the 
you know, and thought it necessary to remove ; hope that under their management the former 
his membership, no one lamented all this ! as editor, and the latter as :t business man, the 
more than I did. You sympathized with him, [cause of Christ would be materially strength - 
and kindly, but unfortunately received him 'ened, and advanced. In this hope, alas, how 
back into this church. i melancholv has been our disapDointment. 

Pardon if you please, another series of Little did we then think that thi, paper and 
facts in relation to Mr. Graves With other ! bo ° kstoi j e we [ e tobe perverted tomere private 
brethren of this city, I labored, as some of ends ' and to be employed to distract, divide 
you here present can bear me witness, for 



thirteen years most assiduously, to originate, 
and establish a Baptist newspaper, for this 
state, and the South-Wesf. This paper, I 



and destroy the churches, and people of 
Christ ! 



And still another series of facts ought here 
to be recounted. Mr. Graves being at that 



myself edited during all that period, and for j time, a comparative stranger, and it being se- 
the whole of this thirteen years' work I re- j riously, and perhaps justly, apprehended that 
ceived not one cent of pecuniary compensa- ' a consequent natural want of confidence in 
tion. I thought myself amply paid in the him, on the part of our people, which doubt- 
good which the paper accomplished for the \ less would have been felt towards any other 
cause of Christ. I also toiled with others faith j man they did not know, might prove detri- 
fully to originate a Baptist Bookstore here, ; mental to the interests of the paper, I intro- 
from which our people could obtain such j duced him to its readers, and continued to 
books as might be useful in the defense, ex- j speak of him in its columns, in terms of high 
planation, and diffusion of true Baptist princi j commendation. I also continued with him, as 
pies. Our success was, under the circum- j one of its editcrs, for months afterwards, and 
stances, remarkable. Very many of the best , still as he well knows, without a cent of corn- 
works of approved authors, were distributed ! pensation. I soon began to fear that in these 
through the city and country. When these ! arrangements we had made a serious mistake, 
enterprises had both been at length achieved, In the style, and spirit of his editorials, I was 



and placed upon a sure footing, having irj 
mind the example of Dr. Mercer, of Georgia, 
I made a donation of the paper, which was 
my individual property, to the General Asso- 
ciation of Tennessee, and co-operated with 
that body, in placing both the paper and the 



greatly disappointed. I did all I could, but 
ineffectually, to soften, and direct them into 
the channel of Christian courtesy. I failed 
totally. Mr. Graves did not choose to defer 
to my opinion. When I could no longer 
endure theirharshness, and bei igerency, I left 



bookstore in the hands of Mr. Graves, and of I finally, the editorship of the p«per, still 
his then partner in business. The paper when | hoping for the best, but without one word of 
it left my hands was free from debt. It owed valedictory to its readers, lest I might thereby 
no man one dollar. Nor did Mr. Graves, j injure its circulation. In this way, and it 
nor did his firm, nor did any ons else for { may be said without any self laudation, I 



28 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



contributed in no small degree, to give Mr. 
Graves popularity, and influence, in Tennes- 
see, and the South -West. To you brother 
Moderator, and not a few others here present, 
who were then my coadjutors, all these facts 
are well known. And I appeal to you, and 
the whole church to say, whether you had 
not, and the church, and I had not therefore 
a right to expect from Mr. Graves a conduct 
towards us, very different from that which he 
has thought proper to pursue. He ought to 
have felt some gratitude. He ought at least, 
no' to have pursued us with such relentless, 
and persevering hostility. I regret the neces- 
sity of detailing these tacts, and submit to it 
only because they are necessary to a just, 
and proper decision of the case now before 
you. 

In April 1850, 1 left Tennessee, and return- 
ed to Virginia, where I confidently expected 
to remain, and to terminate my earthly labors, 
among the scenes of my childhood, and the 
friends of my early days. This church seem- 
ed very desirous that I should again return, 
and resume your pastorship. The church 
knows what at various times, you did in this 
behalf. I declined a first call, and a second 
call. I did so for several reasons. My fam- 
ily is very large, and expensive, and cannot 
be transferred from one city to another, es- 1 
pecially if distant from each other, without 
heavy cost, and labor. I have ever been op- '■ 
posed to frequent pastoral removals. They 
are in my judgment, serious evils, and to be 
avoided whenever it is possible. I was great 
ly prospered in my church in Richmond. 
That church was very large, and flourished 
abundantly. The Lord had there wonder- 
fully succeeded my labors. It was my pur- 
pose not to return to Nashville, notwithstand- 
ing the advice of many brethren who thought 
I ought to do so. My designs were all prov- 
identially changed, and in the following 
manner: In May 1857, I was a member of 
the Southern Baptist Convention held early 
in that month, in Louisville, Kentucky, and I 
took that occasion to visit this church, on 
my way home. I did this not only to grati- 
fy a long cherished affection, but also and es- 
pecially to aid the church as far as I might 
be able to do so, in procuring the services of 
a suitable pastor. During my stay, which 
continued three or four days, I was appealed 
to in such a way as that I became impressed 
with the conviction that it was the will of 



God that I should return, and that duly there- 
fore demanded my compliance. I conse- 
quently accepted the pastorship, which was 
a few days afterwards again offered, and re 
turned to my old and loved field of labor, in 
which I had previously spent sixteen of the 
best years of my life. 

We now approach the period inyourhistory 
which originated the present state of things. 
Certain givings out in his paper indicated very 
plainly that my return to Nashville was dis- 
tasteful to Mr. Graves. I believed however 
that I could overcome his dislike. I made it 
a point, for many reasons, to exercise towards 
him all kindness, mingled with affectionate 
candor. I knew his belligerent propensities, 
and determined to give him no pretext for as- 
sailing me. I assured him that though not a 
Landmarker in his sense, I cared nothing fci 
Landmarkism, one way nor the otber, provi- 
ded those who held the doctrine made no dis- 
turbance about it, and that he must know 
that on that subject every church has a right 
to do as it pleases, without being called in 
question; that I wished well to his Publishing 
House, and would seek its interests, provided 
always that I must oppose several of his books, 
which I believed to be unscriptural, and I 
thought their circulation among our people 
an injury to truth, and piety; that I disap- 
proved the style, the spirit, and much of the 
matter of his paper; that these were my 
candid views, but that I should not attack 
him, and hoped that he would not attack me ; 
that we could work together, and I trusted we 
should do so, since we were together in this 
city, members of the same church, and the 
cause demanded our cooperation. All this in 
a late paper he confesses I said to him, and 
substantially avows that he placed no confi- 
dence in either the sincerity, or truth of my 
statements. I noticed at the time, that to all 
I said on these topics, he listened for the mosl 
part in silence, and with the appearance of 
the incredulity he has since expressed. Va- 
rious other essays which I made to secure 
his kind feelings, were, I am sorry to say, 
equally unsuccessful. The price of his favor 
was evidently entire submission to his views 
and purposes. 

The omens were unpropitious, but we 
nevertheless proceeded together as harmo- 
niously as I expected until the meeting of the 
Sabbath School Convention in this city, in 
October of last year. In that meeting we 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



59 



divided in opinion on, so tar as I know, a single 
topic only. With I know not how many other 
brethren of this, and other churches, I con- 
cur! ed in sentiment. We favored at the time, 
the organization of a Southern Baptist Sun- 
day School Union, provided it could be done 
with the concurrence of the whole South; we 
thought such an organization needed to have 
in charge the general direction of that impor- 
portant department of our interests; we believ- 
ed that it would dogoodin devising measures, 
and securing the means to send out, and 
sustain Sunday School agents, and colpor- 
teurs ; we maintained that we wanted more, 
and better Sundav School books than we 



his private business, or to do harm in any 
way to his Publishing House. I envv no 
man his prosperity. If Mr. Graves has made 
a handsome fortune already, and I am assured 
that he has, I should but the more rejoice in 
his wealth if gained honestly, and honorably. 
On these, and other similar topics, I in my 
simplicity, supposed myself to be above sus- 
picion. Xor, it now seems to me, could Mr. 
Graves himself, have thought, or charged as 
he afterwards did, that in all this, we were 
covertly seeking to overthrow his Publishing 
House, and to destroy his private business, if 
he had not believed that the organization in 
this city, of that particular Publication Board, 



now have ; we opposed only the organization i was to contribute materially to the building 
of a Board in this city, charged with the ! up of his Publishing House, and the success 
special duty of procuring the writing and , of his private business. Of late, as you well 
publication of Sunday School Books. We \ know, he boldly affirms that our object was 



did so for reasons which I shall present 
to your view more fully hereafter, but espe- 
cially because we have already in the South. 
and sufficiently convenient to this city, an 



to deprive him, and his family of their bread. 
How could this construction be placed 
upon our action ? Does his bread and the 
bread of his family depend upon the 



able and efficient Board, to whom the churches overthrow of other interests ? I hold that he 
throughout the country have entrusted this I does not deserve to succeed in business, who 
identical work, and an attempt now on our ; acts upon the principle that to build up him- 
part, to supercede that Board by the appoint ' self he must overthrow and destroy his 
ment of another, and that too, without con- 1 neighbor. 

suiting our brethren in other States, would We certainly, in all we did and said, in- 
be alike illiberal and unjust. I myself, sug- tended no discourtesy, much less offence, to 
gested to him, that it would not meet the ap- any one. Nor, for several months after that 
proval of our brethren generally, and that if meeting, did it seem that we had harmed 
he insisted upon it, he .would, since he is a either Mr. Giaves, his Publishing House, or 
publisher, be suspected of being influenced by j Mr. Dayton. Our relations, abating some 
interested motives, disavowing mean time, rude assaults upon Mr. Hillsman, in which he 
the imputation of any such motives myself, i implicated my integrity, continued much, as 
I assured him that in my opinion, his honor they were before, up to about February of 
demanded that he should take the same ] the present year. Meantime nearly all the 
ground that we did in relation to the organi- Baptist papers, in the whole South, and 
zation of ihat Board ; that as his pastor, I Southwest, had expressed their opinions on 



would for his sake, if for no other reason, 
take the ground I then he'd; and that I 
hoped for the sake of the union, and harmo- 
ny of our people ; in deference to the courtesy 
due our brethren elsewhere; and for his own 
sake, he would give up the appointment of 
that particular Board. In all this we were 
sincere, disinterested and kind. Our purpose 
was to conciliate all parties, and to secure the 
continued harmony of our brethren in every 
portion of our Southern Zion. It did not 
then occur to me that in using these argu- 
ments I should, or could lay myself liable to 
be assailed, as I have been, with so much 
bitterness, and violence, as seeking to injure 



these questions; and while they fully sus- 
tained the correctness of our conclusions, 
decidedly condemned those of Mr. Graves, 
and his partisans, and especially, as to his 
Writing and Publishing Board in this city. 
At this point, it was, that he commenced, 
with violence, his public attacks upon us, 
generally, and upon me particularly, which 
make up three of the five counts in the 
charge now before you; and all of which 
you are, as a church, now called upon faith- 
fully, and impartially to try, and decide, ac- 
cording to the word of God. These trans- 
actions have all occurred among you. To 
youf and to you only, is Mr. Graves amena- 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Lie for his conduct. You, according to the 
teachings of the Divine word, are the judges, 
and the only scriptural judges of the law, 
and the facts. 

Adhering to the course, which, at the 
beginning, I had prescribed for myself, I 
persevered in refusing to have any newspa- 
per controversy with Mr. Graves, or any one 
else, on these or any like issues, involving in 
dividual honor, or integrity. I did not res- 
pond to a single one of all his numerous as- 
saults, nor have I up to this hour, given 
him any provocation, or answered him one 
word, either iu his own, or any other paper. 
Indeed, I cherished for months, and so did we 
all, the hope — alas, that it was so futile! — 
that he would, himself see his errors, and if 1 
he did not return to a better mind, and vol- 
untarily do me, and the other brethren in- 
volved with me, justice, he would, at least, 
not press these attacks to a rupture of church i 
fellowship. 

As his pastor I continued to visit, and in-' 
deed to give special attention to him, and his I 
family. With him personally, however, my ' 
interviews became gradually, more and more 
restrained, and at last were always painful.' 
They were suddenly terminated by his pub- \ 
/■icatioh, in his paper, with misrepresentations, , 
and perversions of two private, confidential, j 
and unreserved conversations, which had 
some months before occurred in his office, in ; 
this city. In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, \ 
dated February 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves says: ! 

"A short time before the Convention, Bro. j 
Howell was in the city office, when we re- 
marked we supposed he had drafted a con- 
stitution, &c, to be presented when the body 
met," — the Sunday School Convention. 'He 
replied that his time had been so engaged, j 
that he had not, and requested us to draft 
one. We said, certainly , we had plenty of 
time of course, having so little to do! We 
added, that it devolved upon, and would be 
expected of him, owing to the position he 
bad taken. lie knew better than any one. 
I suggested that if he could not find time, he j 
had better ask brother Dayton to draft it, as | 
he was one of the movers." ''Brother How- 
ell then requested us to draft a suitable con- 
stitution, which we did." 

And further, in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 
24, dated February the 20th, 1858, Mr. 
Graves says: 

"Brother Howell" "will doubtless remem- 



ber that some months since, be was present 
in our office, when an order came from that 
Society, [Southern Baptist Publication Soci- 
ety,] for certain of our books, provided we 
could send them within a certain time, at 
forty per cent off from our catalogue prices. 
This led to some inquiry, why his books 
were not on sale with us, and more generally 
circulated in Tennessee. The reason assigned 
was, that we could net afford to give our 
books at forty per cent off, in exchange for 
his at twenty-five, or even at thirty-five per 
cent. We would delight to meet them on 
equal terms; but to demand so much more 
for their books, than they are willing to give 
for ours, was, in effect to forbid us to engage 
in their circulation. He suggested, that we 
send Dack an order, worded precisely as theirs 
was, only substituting the titles of his books, 
for those ordered from us, and intimated that 
he felt it was doing him an injury for their 
own advantage, thus to lock up his valuable 
works from a large, and generous circulatioa 
At least those present, who heard the conver- 
sation, understood him to intimate this. He 
did not indeed, charge it in direct terms, nor 
say that he supposed others would do so.' 
But he remarked with a peculiar cast of his 
head, and a vr rv meaning smile, that 'He 
was a native of INorth Carolina, and the peo- 
ple of that State prided themselves upon 
their sagacity, at least in one particular, and 
that is, that they always know a gourd when 
they see the handle.'" 

Now this statement of these two conver- 
sations, is not wholly false, although a large 
part of it is false. Conversations, and on 
these topics, were had. They were free, un- 
guarded, confidential, and having occurred 
soon after my return to this city, were in the 
unreserved style in which commonly friend 
talks to friend. But Mr. Graves' version 
colors, perverts, adds to, and diminishes from 
them in such a way, as that they make an 
impression which is utterly false. To publish 
at all, without the consent of the parties con- 
cerned, private, and confidential conversations, 
is a violation of all the principles of honor; 
to publish such private and confidential con- 
versations, with perversions, and falsifications, 
is grossly immoral, and unchristian; to pub- 
lish them with the design to do injury to the 
person concerned, catching up his words 
carelessly dropped in fiee conversation, where 
no caution, or reserve, is thought necessary, 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



81 



and parading tbem with these falsifications, | and privately state his grievances, accord* 
and perversions, in the newspapers, is conduct ' ing to " Matt. 18," that the charge is illegal- 
which I do not choose to characterise. In ; ly brought. On this false ground, he de- 
ihis manner had Mr. Graves demeaned him- j nounces you as a faction, affects to withdraw 
self towards me, again and again. The next ; from the church, and to escape the exposure 
day after the publication of the second of i of his guilt, which his trial will certainly de- 
these articles, I met Mr. Rogers, a member ■ velope, he declares himself, and his few par- 
•f Mr. Graves' Firm, and frankly told him, ■ tisans here, twenty-five perhaps, the church, 
that I could not again visit the office of the j and refusing to be tried by you, calls upon 
Tennessee Baptist, that I was afraid to do so, them to try him ! Mr. Graves cannot beig- 
since what I said there in free conversation, j norant of the fact, that the issue is not apri- 
and on subjects, no matter how delicate, had i vate personal one between himself, and his 
by its editor, been caught up, and, in violation : pastor. The charge, the counts, the speci- 
of all the principles of honor, and greatly to fications, were all in his hands ; he must 
my prejudice, published in his paper. After i have known the contrary to be true. As 
this, how, brotber Moderator and brethren, ; additional proof, I refer you to the facts, 
could I have, with Mr. Graves, even social, j that in the paper which he read, and called 
but especially christian, and ministerial inter j his protest, he after taking this ground aban- 
course? dons it by assuming other, and opposite 

These attacks upon me I perhaps felt the grounds. He claims that he is the injured 
more keenly, because of my relations to him I party, and that too by his pastor. His pas- 
in past time; as well as from being a member , tor, he told you, had never extended to him 
of the same church, and, also, his pastor. | the courtesies due to a brother minister; he 



During five or six years past, Mr. Graves 
has been engaged in attacking, abusing, and 
defaming brethren of high character, through- 
out tbe country. Specifications of these facts, 
constitute one of the counts in the indict- 
ment now before you. His assaults upon me, 
were but an aggravated instance of his gene- 
ral conduct. Xor in this church, were these 
onslaughts confined to his pastor. They 
were equally furious against certain members 
of the Bible Board, who are, also, members 
of this church, as brethren J. D. Winston, 
Fuller, Jones, C. K. Winston, Darden, S. M. 
Scott, Nelson, Bang, and others. These facts, 
also, form one of the specifications of the 



had not called on him to preach, or to act 
prominently in other devotional meetings. 
Why the pastor thus conducted himself, you 
very well know. But if Mr. Graves was 
aggrieved, why did he not come to me as 
required by the law in "Matt. 18 ?" So in 
the o'her cases, one of which was my oppo- 
sition to the appointment of his Publication 
Board, and the other was my letter to the 
! Index, in which I disapproved two or three 
of the books published by his House. If 
these were private personal matters as he 
alledges, why did he not come to me private- 
ly, as the law directs ? Will he claim that 
he " waived his right" to do so, and attacked 



charge against M 

time commenced, also, his efforts to divide 
this church, so plain in their design, and pur- 
sued with so much perseverance, another of 
the counts in this indictment. I foresaw, 
therefore, with alarm, that Mr. Graves was 
inevitably precipitating a crisis, which must 



A.t the same ! us in his paper, and thus devolved the duty 



on me ? Brother Moderator you, and the 
church, well know that Mr. Graves durst not 
" waive his right." The law is imperative: 
" If thy brother trespass against thee, go and 
tell him his fault between thee and him alone."" 
Had Mr. Graves a "right to waive" obedience 
end disastrously either to him or the church, j to the law of Christ? Surely not. And when 
I was the object of his defamations. So, also, j he did so, and attacked you, and me, and the 
were many of you. The greater part of you 
felt yourselves outraged by Mr. Graves' con- 
duct. 

But Mr. Graves, in the extraordinary 
course, which he last night thought proper to 
pursue, declares that all this is a private and 
personal matter, between him and his pas- 
tor, and since his pastor did not go to him, 



rest of us, stirred up strife, sought to divide 
the church, libelled and defamed us, and 
published numerous falsehoods, was it still a 
private personal matter between him and 
his pastor ? Is it a private personal offence, 
to seek for six months, in public newspaper 
articles, of the most inflammatory character 
to put two ministers at variance — the first 



32 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



count in the charge? Is it a private person- 
al matter between him and his pastor, when 
he uses all public, and secret means, for six 
months to divide the church, and if possible 
overthrow and destroy it?— the second count in 
the charge — and now has as some of you wit- 
nessed last night, actually divided the church. 
Is it a private personal offence between him, 
and his pastor, when he has publicly, and 
week after week, in numerous instances, 
transgressed the law of Christ by libelling 
that pastor in his newspaper? — the third count 
in the charge. Is it a private personal mat- 
ter between him and his pastor, when he 
slanders, abuses, and defames brethren of 
high character throughout the, country? — the 
fourth count in the charge. Is it a private 
personal matter between him and his pastor, 
for him to utter, and publish numerous known 
and deliberate falsehoods? — the fifth count in 
the charge. All this Mr. Graves has the 
face to assume, and pretends that he has by 
" waiving his right" to call upon me, relieved 
himself from all responsibility, and made it 
my duty to go to him privately; and because I 
did not, that all your proceeding in his case are 
illegal; that you — three hundred of you — 
have become u a faction," and Mr. Graves, 
and the twenty or thirty persons whom in 
the division he has effected, he has carried 
off, (most of whom have been, or are now, 
directly or indirectly, connected with his 
newspaper, or his Publishing House,) consti- 
tute the church! And on what grounds do 
these partisans sustain Mr. Graves? The 
charge is grossly immoral and unchristian 
conduct. Do they sustain him in this? Cer- 
tainly they do. Nor do they, nor does he, 
attempt to controvert this proposition. They 
do not deny his guilt. They only insist that 
the charge lias not been brought in a scriptu- 
ral manner! They break off from this 
church to sustain J. R. Graves, and to sus- 
tain him in grossly immoral, and unchristian 
conduct. Need I argue these questions be- 
fore you? No, certainly. You all cannot 
but see that his positions are preposterous, 
and absurd. His offences were open, public, 
notorious, and had become a scandal, and 
reproach, throughout the whole city, and in- 
deed, the whole country. How could any 
private interviews of mine with Mr. 
Graves, have healed the wounds he had 
thus publicly, and persistently inflicted 
upon you all, and upon the cause of our' 



Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, here, and 
elsewhere? 

But I return. Thus matters stood on the 
3d day of April last. The series of meetings 
held in the Spring, which continued about 
three months, and which the Lord so greatly 
blessed, had then been in progress some 
weeks. Mr. Graves had not been seen at one 
of them. It was announced on the previous 
night, that on Saturday night the pastor would 
not be present. On that very night, Mr. 
Graves made his first and last appearance in 
our prayer-meetings during the revival. Mr. 
Scovel, and probably also, Mr. Shankland, 
both partisans of Mr. Graves, went to him 
as soon as he came in, and insisted that he 
should lead the meeting. They, however, 
waited until Dr. C. K. Winston arrived, who 
had previously promised the pastor that he 
would take charge of the services. They 
then stated to him what they had done. Dr. 
Winston himself introduced and continued 
the exercises for some time, and then, as re- 
quested, in the kindness of his heart called 
upon Mr. Graves, who had not the modesty 
to decline, but to the utter disgust of nearly 
all present, took a very prominent part. In- 
deed, some who went forward for pra} T ers 
that night, were so shocked that they never 
did so afterwards, and have not professed re- 
ligion to this day. The pastor felt this con- 
duct most keenly, and when, at 11 o'clock 
at night, he heard of it, he immediately wrote 
Mr. Graves a note, expressing under strictly 
private sanctions, his strong disapprobation 
of his conduct. The next morning, before 
I had an opportunity to send it, Rev. Dr. J. 
H. Eaton, of Murfreesboro', came into my 
study. I showed the note to him in confi- 
dence. Dr. Eaton objected to some things 
in it, and consented to write one with which 
nobody could find fault. He did so, and I 
adopted it, copied it, and this is the note which 
was sent to Mr. Graves. The note was as 
follows : 

STRICTLY PRIVATE. 

Saturday Night, 1 1 o'clock, April 3, '58. 
Rev. J R. Graves : Sir — 

I have just been informed that you took 
the occasion of my absence to-night, to take 
a prominent part in the prayer-meeting. This 
you must have known, was unpleasant and 
displeasing to most of the members present, 
on account of the course you have pursued 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



33 



towards me. their pastor. I hope you will 
not repeat it until you shall retract the charges 
[you have set forth] against me, as publicly 
as they have been made. I am pained to 
feel under the necessity of writing such a 
note as this, to one who is a member of the 
jhurch of which I am the pastor. But duty 
compels me. 

Yours, R. B. C Howell. 

This note assumes, as will be seen, that 
Mr. Graves' conduct towards me, had for 
months been such as to make it a public scan- 
dal, and to destroy all confidence in him ; 
that his attempting, under such circum 
stances, to lead the religious exercises of 
the church was, as he must have known, 
offensive to most of its members ; and that 
until he had done the pastor justice, it was 
hoped that he would not again attempt in 
this way to make himself prominent. This 
expression of my feelings was, however, 
communicated to him under the sanctions of 
strict privacy. The fact that some of my 
deacons had invited him to participate in the 
meeting, was not known to me at the time of 
writing this note. I state them in deference 
to them, and not as, in the least, diminishing 
the indelicacy and impropriety of a compli- 
ance, on the part of Mr. G., with their 
request. No one but Dr. Eaton knew 
anythig in relation to it, nor would he have 
known, but for the desire to have counsel on 
the subject. The conduct of Mr. Graves in 
regard to this note was characteristic. In- 
stead of acting as a Christian gentleman 
would have done in such a case, considering 
its contents and treating them in a Christian 
manner; if offended, coming to his pastor 
and speaking on the subject with him pri- 
vately; he, the very next morning (Sunday) 
and instantly upon its reception, showed this 
" strictly private" note at church, and partly 
in my presence, to as many apparently as 
he could approach, before service, and stood 
upon the front steps showing it, as I am 
credibly informed by persons who saw him, 
to such as passed in, until the preliminary 
services were over, and the sermon was com- 
menced. Since then I have' heard of this 
note from every part of the country. He 
used and misrepresented it, effectually to in- 
flame and agitate the brethren everywhere. 
"Was he aggrieved by this note ? WJiy then 
did he not come to vie with it, as directed in 
Matthew 18 ? That law must govern other s, 
3 



but it does not govern him. Lately this note 
has been published with false glosses in his 
paper. 

On the day following, I received a letter, 
which, from the hand-writing on the outside 
of the envelope, I was assured was from. Mr. 
Graves. I was greatly at a loss as to what 
I should do with this note. It was impossi- 
ble that I could now with any propriety re- 
ceive it, for the same reasons that I could 
have no conversations with Mr. Graves, ex- 
cept in the presence of witnesses. These 
reasons are as follows: 

In the first place, Mr. Graves had in 
February last, two months previous to the 
date of this note, published (as before stated) 
in his paper — the former, Feb. 13th, the lat- 
ter Feb. 20th — two private and confidential 
conversations, which had occurred in his 
office, one in August, and the other in Octo- 
ber of last year ; and what is still worse, he 
published them with such mutilations, per- 
versions, additions, and falsifications, a3 that 
the impression they made upon his readers 
was wholly false. 

In the second place, Mr. Graves had vio- 
lated every principle of honor and religion, by 
the public use he had made, the very day be- 
fore, of a note which was " strictly private" 

In the third place, Mr. Graves' conduct in 
his attempts to divide the church, in his as- 
saults upon its members, and its pastor, and 
upon many brethren abroad, was such as that 
the church felt that it could not much longer 
be endured. No such letters or interviews 
could then heal the breach that he had made. 
That could be done, if at all, only by his 
voluntarily retracing his steps, and himself 
applying the true remedy. 

In the fourth place, what security had I 
that any private notes or private conversa- 
tions that might be permitted, would not 
again appear in his newspaper, with falsifi- 
cations and perversions, as others had be- 
fore, as soon as Mr. Graves found that it 
could be done to promote his own interest, 
or to effect my injury ? 
, In this state of the case, what was I to 
do with this letter? I honestly concluded 
that it was best to send it back to Mr. 
Graves unopened. I did send it back un- 
opened. Possibly I ought not to have re- 
turned it. Certainly if I had been prompted 
merely by policy or a desire to maintain my 
influence with many Baptists of the South- 



T!4 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



West, I should have read and retained his 
letter. But it seemed impopssible for me 
to have any direct personal correspondence 
with him without a certainty of increasing 
our difficulties, and for the same reasons that 
I have no private conversations with 
Mr. Gr. without witnesses. Hence I had 
I upon a correspondence through a 
committee as the only hope of a reconcilia- 
tion. This note, it seems, contained among 
other things, a solicitation of a private in- 
terview. I, however, then knew nothing 
of its contents, nor were they in any way, 
verbal or otherwise, revealed to me until 
three months afterwards, in the correspond- 
ence which then occurred. 

A short time after these events had trans- 
pired, I had in the presence of Rev. R. 
Ford, and Dr. C. K. Winston, a conversa- 
tion wtih Mr. Graves' friend and adherent, 
Mr. A. B. Shankland, in which the matters 
in question were freely talked over, and my 
views clearly expressed. I told Mr. Shank- 
land that it was not my province, according 
to the divine law, to make any proposition 
to Mr. Graves. Mr. Graves had done the 
church, the brethren and the pastor, great 
injury, and that no fellowship could ever 
be extended to him, until he had done them 
justice. Mr. Shankland was understood to 
say that he would look into the affair, and 
try to induce Mr. Graves to correct the 
wrongs he had committed. The matter was 
left in the hands of Mr. Shankland. What 
he did, or whether he did anything more 
than receive some informal propositions from 
D:. Winston, and present them to Mr. 
Graves, I know not. Here, for the time, 
the matter rested. Three months passed, 
and nothing wa3 heard from Mr. Graves. 
Great reluctance was felt to bring Mr. 
Graves before the church, numerous and 
aggravated as were his offences, on account 
of his peculiar position, and relations as a 
professed minister of Christ, as editor of the 
Tennessee Baptist, and especially on ac- 
count of the excitement among his heated 
partisans in the country, that such a meas- 
ure was likely to produce. You were, 
therefore, slow to act, and were anxious to 
avoid it. It would have been easy for Mr. 
Graves, had he desired it, to have placed 
himself in a proper scriptural position in 
the church. 

And now I beg'Jeave to call your.atten 



tion to still another series of facts. If an 
arrangement between Mr. Graves and 
myself would not have obviated all fur- 
ther disciplinary action, why did I institute 
any proceedings on my own account ? 
My answer is that, in my opinion, such 
a proceeding would not have retarded that 
result ; it would doubtless have facilita- 
; ted a peaceful close of these excitements. All 
j hope had not then been abandoned that Mr. 
\ Graves might be brought to a better mind, 
and yet be induced to act the part of a 
christian. At any rate, the measure was 
believed to be worthy of an experiment. 
But however this might turn out, I confess 
that I felt an unconquerable repugnance to 
having my name connected with the pro- 
ceedings of any church trial of Mr. Graves, 
or any one else. I earnestly desired some 
\ movement that might prevent it, and sought 
; to obtain my end by the means which I will 
. now state. 1 addressed to Mr. Graves the 
following note : 

Nashville, July 19, 1858. 
Rev. J. R. Graves : Sir : — 

Conceiving it improper longer to permit 
your personal newspaper assaults upon me 
and other serious offences to pass unnoticed; 
| and sincerely desirous to avoid the necessity 
: of bringing them for its action before the 
church; I make this essay to terminate the 
affair [as to myself] by private adjustment. 
I have to say that brethren C. K. Winston 
and C. A. Fuller, will receive and act upon 
! any communication, which through two 
j brethren appointed by you for that purpose, 
you may think proper to make. 
Respectfully, &c, 

R. B. C. Howell. 

This note was delivered on the next day, 
the 20th of July, and a prompt answer 
promised by Mr. Graves. On the subse- 
quent morning, July 21st, the following 
was received: 

July 20, 1858. 
Chas. Fuller: — 

I have left my response to the note you 
handed me this morning, in the hands of 
brothers Scovel and Creighton, who will 
confer with you and brother W. to-morrow. 

Respectfully, J. R. Graves. 

Thus did Mr. Graves, by naming two 
brethren to act for him, recognize the offi- 
cial position of those brethren, and fully 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATES. 



35 



scriptural character of the pro- 
Mi the 20th of July last, which 
soon after repudiate! and now so 

n i ■ • ■ - 
; 

i to them : 

Fuly 2 
H. G. Scovel Axn G. C. Cbeighton: — 
E ^ r lasl I received z 

>na J". R. Graves, stating t! fc he had 
-. : a note 
to him on the same day 
H nd that you would con 



seek to amend the injury that your 

has tended to do me as a minister, and a 

christian brother? 

You can indicate the time of this personal 
interview to me, in a note, or if you prefer 
it, through brethren Scovel and Cr ; g 
Respectfully, &c, 

J. R. Gba 
P. S. I see by a copy of the corr 
tat has passed between bre 
:id and Winston, that a mis 
standing exists as to the manner in which 
yon propose to conduct our affairs t 

_:ent. I cannot understand the pe- 



- ] K W i ad yse\\ ;i;ar mode sought by you, either from Dr 

saving heard fro ~. ; letter, or from your own. 

I know of only oue proper course for 



f you, I wish to inquire when ih 

sd to. as from Rev. J. R. 

-d T and what time 

- -"on and 

An early replv to this noA is so- 

RespectfuRy, 

Chas. A. Fuller. 
m answer was returned to this 
lit a meeting of the parties was pro 
jure u-hen the following was presented 
from Mr. Gray 

Nashville, July _ 
Elo R. B. C. Howell: — 

- Brother: Yours of the 19th inst. 
-" been received, and I reply promptlv. 
I ^ret most deeply the present unhappy 
alie m of feeling that exists betwee 

causes that have produced it, and I 
vou that I am ready to do all in my 
•e liove both. 
1" : cannot doubt this since, in my 

dated April the 5th, (which was re- 
without answer,) I used this ian- 



tun 



" ! r o. Howell, your course towards me 

has _ -r;eved me, and I wish to meet ~ : 

ate, to converse with you as one 

- should with another. Will you 

grai tie the meeting? If so, what after- 

r night nest week? Or when? 

la in renew this request, confident that 
if we are what we profess to be, chan 
w meet, and without the assistai i 

others, in the spirit of our Master, settle 
cm (Terences. 

If I have- wronged you, I entreat to be 
gohv _ed of my wrong doing, pledging: you 
tha' I will so far as possible, repair the 
wrong; and may I not hope that you will 



christians to pursue, and that is clearly laid 
down in Matt. 13. If you claim - 1 

have injured you, either privately or pub- 
licly, you should seek not to punish me by 
ecclesiastical censure, but in a brotherly 
spirit, to bring me to see, and repent of mv 
error, as Christ has commanded. 

You certanly would not propose to me 
at plan for my acceptan ce 

J. R. G. 
This paper seemed to me to be of an ex- 
| traordinary character, for several rt 
which are as follows : 

1. The correspondence between Dr. Win- 
ston and Mr. Shanklaud simply demanded 
that Mr. Graves should withdraw, and disa- 
vow in his paper the false charges and inju- 
rious imputations against me which he bad 
made in that sheet. This seemed to me 'the 
proper course for christians to pursue." 

2. Mr. Graves assumes that I knew what 
was contained in that letter which I sent 
back unopened, and argues accordingly. I 
kuew nothing of its contents, nor 
substance reported to me verbally. 

3. Mr. Graves had wholly disregarded 
the law of Christ as recorded "in Mate. IS,*' 
and by his incessant assaults upon the church, 
its members, and its pastor, continued for 
now six months, had lashed the whole coun- 
try into intense excitement, The church 
vttry well knew that under the circumstances 
the law for its government is laid down in 
the 5th chapter of First Corinthians. It 
was necessary that she should thus vindi- 
cate herself from the odium fixed upon her 
by Mr. Graves' disgraceful conduct. 

4. Mr, Graves affects to be unconscious 



36 



TRIAL OF REV. J R. GRAVES 



of having done me any injury, privately or 
publicly, and entreats to be convinced of his 
"wrong doing." 

5. He insists upon meeting me in private, 
to converse with me when he knew that he 
had before, on two several occasions pub- 
lished in his newspaper, with falsifications 
and perversions, such private and confiden- 
tial conversations, and had publicly exhibit- 
ed a private note. 

These and other like considerations in- 
duced me to place this letter in the hands of 
Messrs. "Winston and Fuller, to whom, ac- 
cording to Mr. Graves' own arrangement, it 
should have been originally directed. They 
then addressed to Mr. Graves' friends the 
following note : 

Nashville, July 29, 1858. 
H. G. Scovel and G. C. Creighton: — 

Brethren : In brother Graves' note of the 
20th inst., he quotes from a letter formerly 
addressed to brother Howell, to prove his 
(Graves') willingness to adjust the difficul- 
ties between them, and also that brother 
Howell knew that fact, which was stated in 
the letter referred to. We remark that 
brother Howell never opened this letter, but 
returned it just as it was received, only sub- 
stituting [on the outside] brother Graves' 
name for his own. He could not therefore 
know the fact to which brother Graves re- 
fers. 

It seems to appear from brother Graves' 
note that he does not understand the plan 
upon which brother Howell proposes to pro- 
ceed in the adjustment of their difficulties, 
-which plan was specifically stated by Dr. 
C. K. "Winston, in his note of the 12th of 
July to A. B. Shankland, as also in the note 
of the 19th instant to brother Graves. We 
are authorized to say that brother Howell 
will do whatever is demanded by honor or 
religion ; but that the plan may be definitely 
settled at once, he offers the following basis 
of settlement: 

1. J. R. Graves is required to withdraw 
all the charges of an offensive and personal 
character, which he has made against broth- 
er Howell, which he (Howell) will specifi- 
cally present, and in as few words as pos- 
sible, in the same manner, and as extensive- 
ly as he has made them, without note or 
comment. 

2. R. B. C. Howell shall, on his part, 
withdraw all the charges of an offensive and 



personal character, which he has made 
against brother Graves, which he (Graves) 
will specifically present, and in as few worda 
as possible, in the same manner, and as ex- 
tensively as he has made them, without note 
or comment. 

You will please convey this proposition 
to brother Graves as soon as possible, and 
secure from him in writing, or by his en- 
dorsement of this note, his acceptance or 
rejection of it. 

We assure you of our sincere desire to 
settle this difficulty, and trust that this feel- 
ing will be reciprocated by you. If brother 
Graves rejects this proposition, we have 
none other to make, and here the matter as 
far as we are concerned shall end. 

Yours truly, C. K. Winston. 

C. A. Fuller. 

This proposition was regarded as undoubt- 
edly fair. The pastor required nothing of 
Mr. Graves towards him, that he did not 
offer to accord to Mr. Graves. It was re- 
ciprocal and magnanimous. And still more. 
I offered to do "whatever is demanded by 
honor and religion." What more than this 
could I do ? I was ready to do no less. 
Mr. Graves ought certainly to have accepted 
it. Did he accept it ? The brethren acting 
for me placed in my hands the preceding 
correspondence, with the following final 
note- 

Nashville, August 16th, 1858. 
Rev. R. B. C. Howell :— 

Dear Sir and Brother : To this letter [the 
last above] we have received no written re- 
ply, but at a subsequent meeting, brother 
Winston not present, we were informed no 
written reply was necessary, and understood 
from the conversation that occurred, that 
the proposition made in our last note was 
rejected. 

Here our labors rested. We have since 
received no communications either verbal or 
written, from Rev. J. R. Graves, or the 
brethren named by him, and therefore con- 
clude that there can be no further occasion 
for our services in the matter you submitted 
to our consideration. 

Yours truly, 

Chas. K. Winston. 
Charles A. Fuller. 

Thus Mr. Graves refused to accede to any 
proposition whatever. Those made were 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



37 



undoubtedly scriptural and right, and de- 
manded by truth, brotherly love and reli- 
gion. Madly bent upon his own desperate 
designs he would hear nothing, nor consent 
to any measure however reasonable or just. 

These negotiations commenced, as will be 
seen, July 19th, and notwithstanding every 
effort to facilitate them, dragged on until the 
lGth of August, and at that ,point ended in 
utter failure. I made one more, and a last 
effort to screen Mr. Graves from this church 
trial. 

About sunset on the afternoon of Sept. 8th, 
the night of the regular church meeting, Mr. 
Shankland incidently saw me as I was pass- 
ing his office, and asked me if the charge 
would be brought that night against Mr. 
Graves. I told him that I did not know 
certainly, the matter not being in my hands, 
but supposed that they would be. Mr. S, 
asked me to interpose and prevent it, ex- 
pressing, as his opinion, that Mr. Graves 
would yet do justice to the parties aggrieved. 
I promised him that I would speak to the 
brethren having the matter in charge. I did 
so. They, however, having lost all confi- 
dence in Mr. Graves' disposition to do any- 
thing in the case which would be right or 
scriptural, and their patience being utterly 
worn out, declined longer delay. The charge 
was preferred at the regular business meet- 
ing of the church in September. 

What else could you do? The whole 
chuich was beginning to be reproached as 
upholding his conduct, and to suffer in pub- 
lic estimation as particeps criminis in his 
guilt. You could not disregard the divine 
law, enacted for your government in all such 
cases. It is recorded in the fifth chapter of 
First Corinthians, as follows: 

"I verily, as absent in body, but present in 
spirit, have judged already, as though I were 
present, concerning him that hath so done this 
deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
when you are gathered together, and my 
spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan, for 
the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit 
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 
"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth 
the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the 
old leaven that ye may be a new lump.' 1 
"Now I have written to you not to keep com- 
pany, if any man that is called a brether, be 
a fornificator, or covetous, or an idolater, or 



a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, 
with such, no not to eat." "Do ye not judge 
them that are within?" "Therefore put away 
from among you that wicked person." 

The original charge against Mr. Graves 
was preferred by two members of the church, 
John C Darden, and Charles A. Fuller, who 
under an imperative sense of duty, preferred 
the charge with the first four counts; and S. 
M. Scott, and Anson Nelson, afterwards pre- 
ferred the fifth. Mr. Graves ridicules these 
brethren and avers that they were employed 
by the pastor to bring them for him. You 
will know, brother Moderator, that they were 
not brought for the pastor, as before said, any 
more than for themselves, and the members 
of the church generally, who had been so 
long outraged by the conduct of Mr. Graves. 

One more faet ought here to be stated. It is 
well known to you and others, that it had 
been the expectation if Mr. Graves would 
force the church to a trial, to move the refer- 
ence of his case to a large and able commit- 
tee, with instructions to call a Council, *half 
of whose members should be named by Mr. 
Graves, to examine the case thoroughly, and 
report to the church for its action. Mr. 
Graves' partisans in the church meeting, 
however, especially Messrs. Scovel, Dayton, 
Creighton, and Rutland, earnestly repudiated 
all such committees, and inveighed against 
them as unscriptural and "inquisitorial." 
They required the case to come directly be- 
fore the church. In compliance with their 
views, and apparently much to their satisfac- 
tion, the case was ordered as they wished. It 
was voted to entertain it; a copy of the charge 
and the counts, and specifications, (referring 
definitely to every proof relied on in the case,) 
was ordered to be placed in his hands; a day 
was set apart for the hearing of the case; , 
and the clerk was instructed, officially, to 
summon him to be present and answer. 

I have especial reasons, brother Moderator, 
for calling attention to the faet, and I wish it 
to be distinctly remembered here, and else- 
where, that Mr. Graves is not now arraigned 
before you for any errors he may have es- 
poused, respecting christian doctrine, or pol- 
ity, however unscriptural his sentiments may 
be; and especially is he not arraigned for his 
Landmarkisro. Were he before you on 
these ground?, I should still insist on an able 
Council to assist you, however earnestly it 
might be opposed by Mr. Graves and his 



38 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



friends. He is arraigned exclusively for 
grossly immoral, and unchristian conduct. 
He may seek, and I imagine be will, to make 
the impression that he is charged with other, 
aud trifling tilings. Indeed lie is already en- 
deavoring to do" this. You will, I am sure, 
hold him strictly to the issues before you. 

It is very plain, from considerations already 
adduced, and still more evident from the re- 
cent tone, and style of bis paper, that he in- 
tended to provoke you to the ritrhost, under 
the impression tli.tt no one would dare to 
charge himbefbre the church, and if charged 
that he would be able to intimidate, and alarm 
you 30 as to prevent any effective action, 
while he would himself refuse to meet any 
of your requisitions. Of ibis, his conduct 
last night is, of itself, sufficient proof. In 
addition to those already before you, consider 
the following facts! About the time the pri 
vate negotiations were pending, and before 
this charge was laid before the church, be 
published in his paper, articles, of which the 
following are examples: In the Tennessee 
Baptist of July the 17th, 1856, No. 4.1. he 
endorses an article from Rev. C R. Hen- 
drickson of Memphis, in which occurs the 
following passage: 

One of your, (Graves 1 ,) bitterest enemies 
of Nashville, when in Memphis, said: "They, 
[this church,] could not take hold of you, so 
as to throw you out of the church; they would 
like to do it, but could not" He adds: — 
"By the way, if that threatened attempt 
should be made, there would be such a howl 
of indignation throughout the Southwest, 
that the church in Nashville would think the 
day of judgment bad come." 

Nor is this all. In his said paper of July 
17th, 1858, Mr Graves supposes a case to 
illustrate bis own. He says: 

'•Now suppose that they, [Mr. Dayton* al- 
leged persecutors,] as a last resort to ruin him, 
charge him before the First Church, and a 
majority should" ''pronounce him guilty, and 
exclude him, who cannot see what would 
follow? Should he find a church that would 
give his case a hearing. a"d assisted by a 
Council if you please, prove him an innocent, 
and grossly wronged, and persecuted man, 
and give him membership, the Concord As- 
sociation would take cognizance of the fact, 
and pronounce that one of the churches was 
in disorder. But right here would be brought 
in extraneous influences, personal considera- 



tions, and the whole transacnon would be 
charged upon the Landmark Baptist?, or the 
editor of the Tennessee Baptist, (as the late 
Sabbath School Convention was,) whose de- 
sign was to divide, and make a party; and 
th- division once commenced, who could 
oresee its end? Every church in Middle 
Tennessee, and North Alabama, would be 
forced to take sides, and the limits of the 
Slate would not confine it. Now this would 
be, should it take place, surely charged to the 
advocates of the Landmark policy, but who 
cannot see that the very innocence of brother 
D. (he doubtless means himself,) would be 
the real cause of it, i e, should the denomi- 
nation be determined to sustain bis innoceney 
against hi* assailants." 

But what are the evidences that they 
thought your intimidation easy, and that in 
the course of a few weeks, they had actually 
fully accomplished it? They are found in 
various considerations, but especially in an 
article in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 49, da- 
ted August 21st, 1858, from the Junior edi- 
tor, as f 

"Brethren need not fear a church trial of 
either the senior, or junior editor, brother G. 
or 1 >. There has been no charge against 
either of us. There can none be made that 
can be sustained.' 1 '' "I do not believe that 
the brethren who have put in circulation the 
report that charges have been made, or will 
be made, will dare to make any such charge." 
"There will be a great, deal of threatening 
thunder in the passing cloud, but it will turn 
out to be only wind." 

Such were the threats, and menaces held 
over you by Mr. Graves, should you dare to 
call him to account for his flagrant mrmorali- 
ties. All your pretences are "only wind." 
You ''will not dare" to arraign him, much 
less to find him guilty. Do so, and he tells 
you beforehand, and to yottr face, what will 
be the results. lie will make it a Landmark 
issue, and bring upon you all the adherents 
of that doctrine; he will apply to another 
church for membership, which will call a 
Council, give him admission, and pronounce 
him "a grossly wronged and persecuted man," 
and your proceedings shall thus be rebuked, 
and denounced; the Concord Association 
will, he confidently tells you, call you to ac- 
count, pronounce you in disorder, and place 
upon you the bran of excommunication; he 
will compel indeed every church in Middle 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



39 



Tennessee, to take sides, and if they are not 
all in his favor, he will divide them; nor will 
the limits of the State confine the division 
be will make. This is what he will do. 
Now bring your charge if you dure! Not fe 
this all. Bare to pronounce him guilty, and 
''such a howl of indignation will come ap 
from all parts of the South west, as will make 
you thi>ik the day of judgment lias come." 

At last, goaded beyond endurance, the 
ebarge rs actually brought, and what do you 
now see? The Junior editor in his next pa 
per, September 11th, laughs at the proceed- 
ing in an inflammatory, and bitter article, 
tolls his readers that '"the testimony referred 
to, was nothing but some articles published 
in the Baptist Register, and Tennessee Bap 
list, and has long been before the world, con- 
sequently not private, as is now contended. 
but public and notorious, but of no impor- 
tance. They were published, ami therefore 
not sinful! He then introduces a corres- 
pondent, who signs himself, whether tir.lv or 
not, I can not say, but perhaps truly, since 
Mr. Graves is himself, *A member of the 
First Baptist Church" who writes as 
follows: 

'•It was with great mortification I witnessed 
at the First Baptist Church last evening, so 
strong a determination to carrv on the work 
of distraction by them so recently commenced. 
They are. bent upon doing one thing, which 
if they shall effect, will ruin the First Bap- 
tist Church in Nashville. Yes sir, the star 
of its hope will set; its candle will go »ut." 
The Lord of hosts will not permit his church 
to perpetrate so gross injustice against one of 
his servants; one thai has vindicated his 
truth, as the editor of this paper has; without 
purging her with his great wrath." 

Why all this bravado? What does Mr. 
Graves propose to accomplish by it? It is 
evident that his design was to intimidate the 
church and thus prevent it from entertain- 
ing the charge brought against him for his 
unchristian conduct. It is evident that 
from the first he was determined to give no 
satisfaction, but to prevent the church by 
intimidation from investigating the charge. 
The impunity you have for years past given 
Mr. Graves, permitting him to attack, mal- 
treat, and abuse the best men in our de- 
nomination, unquestioned, and unrebuked, ' 
has rendered him bold, and reckless in his 
sinful course. And now when he finds 



that you will not be intimidated — that the 
church will no longer suffer him as a member 
to go on in his defamations of character, 
and other immcralities, thus bringing the 
cause of Christ, into reproach, and dishonor 
— he refuses to be tried by you, pretends 
to withdraw, and denounces you as a fac- 
tion. You will of course* not regard his 
movements in these respects, since the 
Savior himself apprises you that some 
offenders will act in this manner; they will 
as Mr. Graves has, "Refuse to hear the 
church." "If he refuse to hear the church, 
let him be unto thee as a heathen man, 
and a publican/' The pretended "with- 
drawal" of Mr. Graves cannot effect the 
right of the church to proceed with the 
trial. The conduct with which he is 
charged is evidently within the jurisdiction 
of the church. Rut in proceeding with 
this trial, you should as carefully prosecute 
it, in all its parts, as if he were himself 
present, that if he is found guilty you may 
fully record, and place before the eyes of 
all our brethren, the true reasons why he 
is to you, as a heathen man and a publican. 
Pardon me brother Moderator, and breth- 
ren, for having detained you so long in 
these preliminary statements. They were 
necessary to a proper understanding of the 
subject, and to place you and me, and all 
of us, in our true positions in relation to 
this trial. I now proceed to the consider- 
ation ef the first Count in the charge 
against J. R. Graves. 

COUNT T. 

The first count in the charge brought 
against J. R. Graves in this category, is as 
follows : 

"We the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves a member of 
said church, and one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral, 
and unchristian conduct, in that he has 
sought to bring upon R. B. C. Howell, the 
Pastor of said church, reproach, and injury, 
and thus to destroy his character, and influ- 
ence in the Soidhwest, by forcing him into 
collision with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Cor- 
responding Secretary of the Bible Board, and 
now one of his associate editors, through the 
publication in his said paper, of various 
false, and malicious representations. 



40 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



This count in the charge, made before 
you, after mature, and prayerful delibera- 
tion, by two responsible brethren, in behalf 
©f themselves, and of the whole church, is 
of a most serious and important character. 
Is Mr. Graves guilty? Would to God he 
were not. That he is guilty however, is 
unquestionable. This fact I shall place in 
as few words as possible, beyond the reach 
of doubt, by full, and legitimate evidence, 
and in doing which I shall find it neces- 
sary to reproduce and review all the evi- 
dence that has been read before you. 

The production within a few years past, 
of two volumes of religious fiction, entitled 
Theodosia, and which attained at once, 
an almost unprecedented popularity, sud 
denly gave to Mr. Dayton a reputation of 
the highest character. He found a warm 
place in the great Baptist heart. His praise 
was heralded throughout the land. This 
work evinced superior genius, and' although 
as an argument greatly inferior to many 
ethers, and in some respects, especially in 
the second volume, seriously unscriptural, 
and objectionable, yet as "A story of love and 
'marriage" it was exceedingly attractive. 
He was believed to be very far the most 
popular minister in all the Southwest. In 
this I rejoiced with probably as much sin- 
cerity as any other man, never imagining 
that this popularity was to become the in- 
strument of my overthrow, and of your 
overthrow, and destruction. Mr. Graves 
it seems, wasted the means to put us down, 
and he readily imagined that if he could 
bring us into conflict with that overwhel- 
ming power, that we should be at once, 
and effectually crushed. The manner in 
which he attempted this work, has been 
stated in the count now before you 



ister, as an author, or as Corresponding 
Secretary of the Bible Board, of the South- 
ern Baptist Convention. The truth is I did 
not in that speech refer to Mr. Dayton at 
all. He was not in my thoughts. In the Ut- 
ter in question, and that contains every word 
that I have ever published on the subject, 
any where, or at any time, I made two state- 
ments of facts which were certainly not 
very reputable to the parties concerned. 
The first was the declaration by Mr. Day- 
ton, in the newspapers, before it assembled, 
that the Sunday School Convention was 
called at my instance, and his statement in 
the same newspapers, after its adjournment, 
that it was called by him, and Mr. Graves. 
The second was that they had concealed 
from me their purpose to avail themselves 
of that Sunday School Convention, to inau- 
gurate a new Publication Board in the 
South, to be under their direction. Still 
the whole letter was written in kind lan- 
guage, and assuredly with the best feelings 
towards all concerned. Before I introduce 
Mr. Graves' gross, and criminal assaults 
founded upon it, I will refer to several 
other facts necessary to be known, in order 
that this subject may be fully understood. 

He charges as one of my chief offences, 
that in the letter in question, I had impli- 
cated Mr. Dayton as neglecting his duty as 
Corresponding Secretary, to write books, 
which he vehemently denies, and pro- 
nounces it a foul, cruel, and unjust impu- 
tation upon the Secretary. What shall I 
say to all this? 

Mr. Graves knew, since he had been a 
member of it from the beginning, that the 
Bible Board about the time of its organiza- 
tion, adopted a resolution requiring the 
Corresponding Secretary to devote his tin- 



The grounds upon which he essays to | divided time to the duties of his office. He 
justify his false, and malicious publications I further knew that he had himself then re- 
against me in relation to Mr. Dayton, are centiy stated that the same Corresponding 
a speech made by me in the Sabbath School Secretary was busily engaged in preparing 
Convention, held in this city, last autumn, \ a series of books for publication. The 
and a letter, making some personal explana- 1 proof of this fact is before you. In his 
nations, dated December 21st, 1857, and | Register for 1858, then before the public, 
published in the Christian Index of Geor- on the cover inside, fronting the title page, 
gia. To that speech he has recurred in his j under the head of "Southwestern Pub- 
paper often, and at great length, but he | lishing^ House," - 
has not designated in it, nor can he desig- 
nate, a single sentence, or word, which re- 
flected injuriously upon Mr. Dayton, in 
any way, as a man, as a christian, as a min- 



we have this notice of 
New Books to be published in 1858:" 
"The Infidel's Daughter, by the authoc 
of Theodosia, 

To be ready by the first of March. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



41 



1 and 2 of a series of Baptist Sun- 
day School Question Books, by A. C 
Dayton." 

In his paper he said, if I mistake not. 
that these Sunday School books the Secre- 
tary would have ready, and present them 
to the Union at its approaching meeting 
to be held the coming April at Americus 
in Georgia. He could not help seeing that 
■I, or any one else, would naturally, and in- 
voluntarily, couple these two facts together: 
the prohibition of the Secretary from devo- 
ting his time to any other than the busi- 
ness of his office, and the fact that he was 
devoting his time largely to writing books 
for Mr. Graves — he himself having an- 
nounced that in a short period he would 
furnish him three volumes — and that the in- 
quiry would arise, as a matter of course, 
whether in this case, the Bible Board, if its 
claims were regarded, would not demand tote 
consulted, and that its consent should be had, 
before Mr. Dayton could justly, according 
to his contract with that Board, give so 
much of his attention as the work indica- 
ted would certainly require, to the prepar- 
ation of these books. I did not object to 
his writing the proposed books. Probably 
ihe Board, had it been consulted, would 
not have objected. This however was not 
certain. I did not in the letter referred 
to, nor anywhere else, even allude to any 
book, or tract, or article previously written 
by Mr. Dayton. My objection so far as 
as appears, was not to any book that he had 
published, or might publish. In all that I 
Baid, and wrote on these subjects, I spoke 
of Mr. Dayton only in the most, respectful 
and courteous terms. This is the whole 
amount of my offence against Mr. Dayton. 
Nothing else so far as I know, was then, 
even pretended. 

Mr. Dayton himself did not at that 
time, seem to think himself grievously of- 
fended. I arrive at this conclusion from 
the fact that subsequently, as previously, 
he associated with me, in my own pulpit, 
and out of it, and so far as I knew, or sus- 
pected, freely, and affectionately. It did 
not occur to me that I had ever given him 
reason to feel, or act otherwise. And this 
state of things continued up to the period 
at which Mr. Graves' inflammatory articles 
began to appear. Since that time, Mr. 
Dayton has been wholly another man. He 



has abandoned our congregation, our prayer 
meetings, and other religious assemblies. 
He has kept at a distance from me, and 
! evidently avoided us all whenever it was 
I practicable to do so. "With these facts dis- 
| tinctly before us, we proceed to the speci- 
fications and proofs of the charge before 
us. 

FIRST SPECIFICATION. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 23, dated 
February 13th, 185S, Mr. Graves says: 

There is manifestly a systematic attempt 
to cripple down the Secretary of the Bible 
Board, on the part of Anti-Landmark men, 
anj editors." 'And not the least indica- 
tive sign [is] the allusion to brother Day* 
ton as Corresponding Secretary, in Elder 
Howell's letter to the Index, in which he 
virtually — to all intent and purposes — attaints 
Brother Dayton for Malfeasance in 
Office, by an insinuation. We allude to 
this sentence: 'But we are told by the 
newspapers, that this very brother is himself 
rapidly preparing Sunday School books, 
and that several will be ready, and actually 
presented to 'The Union' in April next, 
at Americus in your state. Very well. 
Let him prepare them, if the Bible Board will 
allow their Corresponding Secretary to devote 
nearly all his time to writing ftboks, and in- 
stead of presenting them to the Union, send 
them to the Southern Baptist Publication 
Society. If they are such books as the 
Baptists approve, that Society will publish 
them, and for as small a price, and in as 
good style as the work can be done else- 
where in the South or Southwest.' T)oes 
brother H. mean to say that the Correspon- 
ding Secretary has neglected, or may prob- 
ably neglect his official duties to write 
books? If not, why say, 'If the Board 
will allow him to devote nearly all his time 
to writing books?' In any light the im- 
pression left is very bad, and casts suspi- 
cion upon the Secretary, reflecting too 
nearly a sentiment once before published 
in this city, which no man should approve." 
"He, [Mr. Dayton,] has done too much 
good to be let alone. He is enjoying too 
much of the love, and attracting too much 
of the attention of Baptists, not to be 
compelled to suffer the penalty that superi- 
ority, or great ■usefulness is ever doomed 
to pay." 



42 



TEIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



In these extracts deliberately written, 
and published by Mr. Graves, I ask the 
attention of the church, to the following 
considerati 

1. lie asserts that in the letter in ques- 
tion, I "attainted Mr. Dayton for tiialfea- 

in office." 
Was it then a crime in me, to suppose 
that since Mr. Dayton had especially con- 
tracted to give his undivided time to the 
of the Board, if any considerable 
portion of it was diverted to another pur- 
pose, it must be with the consent of the 
Board, and that to give its consent, the 
Board must be consulted on the subject? 
Could I suppose that 3Ir. Dayton would 
think such consultation degrading? 
seems to me that it would have been far 
otherwise. The Board had not been con- 
sulted, and I was not certain that when it 
should be, it would allow its Corresponding 
ry to devote so large a portion of 
. ; as the work indicated would neces- 
sarily demand, to writing books. I said in 
other words, If the Board will consent, let 
Mr. Dayton write the books, and let the 
in Baptist Publication .Society, if 
they approve them, publish the books. And 
this is attainting Mr. Dayton for malfeasance 
in office ! It is certainly a " false and ma- 
cious representation," designed to excite 
contention between me and*Mr. Dayton, 
and thus to bring upon me reproach and 
injury. 

2. What does Mr. Graves mean by say- 
ing in this connection, that Mr. Dayton 
" hai done too much good to be let alone" 
by his Pastor, and others? 

Does he not substantially affirm that I 
join with others, and harass, assail, and 
persecute Mr. Dayton, because he has done 
so much good ? This also is plainly a false 
and malicious representation, made with 
the same design as the other. 

3. What, I ask you, does Mr. Graves 
mean by declaring here, that Mr. Dayton 
" is enjoying too much of the love and at- 
tracting too much of the attention of Bap- 
tists, not to be compelled to suffer the pen- 
alty that superiority, and great usefulness is 
ever doomed to pay." 

Mr. Dayton may be a very great, and a 
very useful man. The greater and the more 
useful he is, the more, if he were also a j_Ood 
man, would I rejoice in having him among 



us. I am sure that while I never claimed 
to be his equal, it never occurred to me 
that I had any reason to be jealous of his 
popularity, or envious of any portion of 
the Baptist love he enjoys. I always sup- 
posed that I had myself, fully as much pop- 
ularity, and of the love of my brethren as 
I ever deserved. My feeling on these sub- 
jects however. Mr. Graves, it seems cannot 
understand. Does he not here charge that 
because Mr. Dayton is my superior. 

rthrow ? Does he not substantially 
affirm that I am envious of the love, and 
attention that the Baptists give to Mr. J 'ay- 
ton, and that I " attaint him for malfea- 
sance in office," that I may deprive him of 
that love, and attention ? These represen- 
tations are "false and malicious." 

What, I now ask, could have been his 
motives for making them ? W r ho can doubt 
that it was his design to force me into col- 
lision with Mr. Dayton, and thus arraying 
his great popularity, which he 
much lauds, against me to break down ray 
character, influence, and usefulness in the 
South W 



SECOND SPECIFICATIONS. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated 
February 20th, 1858, 3Ir. Graves utters 
the following : 

" That part of brother Howell's letter 
that most deeply pains us, is the sentence 

that Casts that .MOST UNKIND AND CRUEL 

suspicion upon brother Dayton. Unless it 
does by implication, charge him with hav- 
t most of his time, or that he is noio 
j, or that the probabilities are that 
he is about to spend most of his time in wri- 
ting books, we cannot gather brothel" How- 
ell's intent in penning it. He must have 
known that it would deeply wound brother 
Dayton's feelings, mar his peace, and make 
him uncomfortable. He must have known 
that the sentence was admirably calculated 
to excite suspicion, in the minds of all over 
whom he had influence. He doubtless 
knew that such a paragraph as this had 
been penned and published by 'A Member 
of the Bible Board.' Surely brother H. 
nor any other man, can think it slrat 
brother D. should feel sensitive to .-■ 
insinuations reproduced by the ^President of 
tlie Bible Board" " If it be a sin against 
morals, or the Holy Spirit, for the Secretary 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R, GRAVES. 



43 



<>f the Bible Board to write a book, or a tract 
while so connected, is it not us heinous a sin 
for the Pastor of a church, who setts his 

time for a stipulated sum '.' Establish this 
law and our brother Howell is the most guil- 
ty man known to us, uuless brother Everts 
of Louisville." 

In this extract I desire to call the 
attention of the church to the following 
points : 

1. When that letter was written, I was 
not the President of the Bible Board. 

This is another specimen of the reckless- 
ness of Mr. Graves" assertions, when he 
thinks he can by such means serve his pur- 
poses. 

2. He says that I reproduced insinua- 
tions of " A Member of the Bible Board," 
'•'once before published in this city, which 
no man should approve," against Mr. Bay- 
ton. 

"Who wrote the article in the Baptist 
Watchman, signed " A Member of the Bi- 
ble Board." I know nut : I never sought to 
know. I did not write it myself. Br. Jones 
assures me he did not write it It was, 
however, a short, plain, and courteous state- 
ment of facts. 

The -'insinuations reproduced" by me, 
as here charged bv Mr. Graves, and of 
which he says, I doubtless knew that they 
were the same with those of a paragraph 
published by an editor of this city a year 
before, and to which he has of late so often 
rocurred, and commented upon so bitterly, 
I find upou inquiry, to have been an article 
which, appeared in the Parlor Visitor, then 
conducted by Rev. W. BE. Bayless, at the 
time pastor of this church, and Br. W. 
P. Jones in this city. That article of 
Br. Jones I never saw. Up to this 
hour it has not met my eyes. I was curi- 
ous to know its character, and learned that 
it was a Critique upon Religious Novels gen- 
erally, which the writer condemned in 
strong language, as calculated to do in the 
christian life, harm in the same way, and 
to the same extent, that ordinary romances 
do in common social life. It repudiated 
all lovesick stories, religious or irreligious. 
I am told, however, that no where in that 
article, which so mortally offended Mr. 
Graves, does either the name of Mr. Bay- 
ton, or of Theodosia occur. How, then, 
it maybe asked, could Mr. Bayton consider 



himself especially implicated ? By what 
process of reasoning could Mr. Graves ap- 
ply it to me, since I had nothing to do with 
it, and never saw it ? Mr. Graves, without 
any reason, justice, or propriety, placed 
: these circumstances in this relation to sub- 
j serve his own purposes. He first made Br. 
| Jones' article on religious novels, apply to 
1 Theodosia ; then he applied it to Mr. Day- 
I ton as the author of that book ; then to Mr. 
Dayton as Corresponding Secretary of the 
! Bible Board; and having by repeated ap- 
peals, nearly two years ago, and before my 
return to the West, succeeded in stirring 
j up among his partisans not a little odium, 
J and angry feeling, against Br. Jones, he 
now seeks to connect this matter with my 
j Index letter, and thus to transfer to me that 
', same odium, and angry feeling, so unjust 
even in its application to Br. Jones, and 
how much more so as to me ! But in all 



this what 



Mr. G 



s' d< 



raves aesisru 



It was 



| his design to injure me and put me down, 
! by bringing to bear against me, the late 
extraordinary popularity of Mr. Bayton. 

o. Mr. Graves avers that I have brought 
upon Mr. Bayton " most unkind and cruel 
suspicions." 

I have already explained the relations of 
the parties to the standing rule of the 
Bible Board, requiring the Secretary to de- 
vote his undivided time to the duties of his 
office. Mr. Graves, however, again brings 
it up in new associations, and I must again 
explain. In view of that rule, which 
since it existed before, necessarily entered 
into Mr. Bayton' s contract with the Board; 
and in view of the authoritative announce- 
ment of Mr. Graves himself, that the same 
Secretary was diligently at work preparing 
a series of books for publication, which were 
to be ready in a few months ; how could I 
conclude otherwise, believing, as I did, all 
the parties honest Christian men, but that 
the Board would be consulted, and might 
possibly withhold its consent? I suggested 
this as delicately as I was able, and certain- 
ly in courteous, and respectful language. 
Mr. Graves is filled with indignation, and 
pronounces it "That most unkind and cruel 
susjyicion" cast by me upon Mr. Bayton ; 
asserts that I " must have known that it 
would deeply wound" him, " mar his peace, 
and make him uncomfortable;" that it would 
"excite suspicion;" and that '"'Brother Bay- 



44 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



ton felt sensitive," because it was " a re- 
production by the President of the Bible 
Board of former insinuations." 

What could Mr. Graves hope to accom- 
plish by all this tissue of falsification and 
appeals? They are charged by the breth- 
ren, as " false, and malicious representa- 
tions ; " they are now proved to be 
"false and malicious representations." 
His purpose was undoubtedly to bring 
me into collision with Mr. Dayton, and 
thus by arraying against me his supposed 
overwhelming popularity, to bring upon me 
in the minds of all his admirers, reproach 
and injury, and to destroy my character, 
and influence in the South-West. 

But that this ivas Mr. Graves' purpose, 
and that he flatters himself that he has 
already, to a great extent, really accom- 
plished it, we have still more direct, and un- 
equivocal testimony. Various articles in his 
paper might be referred to, but I will sat- 
isfy myself with one only. It is found in 
the [Tennessee Baptist, dated July 17th, 
1858, as follows : 

" Our readers will find in this column 
this week, a fine specimen of the senti- 
ments of not the Baptist rank and file only, 
but of a number of the leading minds of 
the denomination from Maryland to Florida, 
and Virginia to the fartherest Texas." 
Among these "fine specimens" is one from 
a man who signs himself " Alabama," and 
in commendation of whom Mr. Graves 
says, he is well informed as to the state of 
public feeling in his section, as the others 
are in their sections. Alabama writes 
thus : 

" Where is Tus^n's influence in South 
Carolina ? Where are Hillsman's, and his 
friend H. [Howell's] in Tennessee ? 
Where is Henderson's in Alabama ? Not 
one of them has a tithe of the influence in the 
heart of their territory that they had before 
they began this war upon Bro. Graves, and 
his paper. They have made a pit, and 
digged it, and are fallen into the ditch 
which they made. Their mischief has re- 
turned upon their own heads, and their 
violent dealing has come down upon their 
own pate." 

I have only to ask, why, if Mr. Graves 
did not intend to destroy my character, and 
influence in the South-West, does he thus 
congratulate himself that he has done so, 



and eagerly, and with commendations, pub- 
lish the declaration that I have not now 
one tithe of the influence that I had when 
he commenced this war upon me in his pa- 
pert 

Other specifications, and many more 
proofs of Mr. Graves' guilt as charged in 
this count, might be introduced, but these 
are deemed amply sufficient. We have 
now seen that he falsely charges me with 
"attainting Mr. Dayton for malfeasance in 
office;" with envy of Mr. Dayton's popular- 
ity ; with persecuting Mr. Dayton on ac- 
count of his superiority, and usefulness ; 
that he refers to me as President, when I 
was not the President of the Bible Board, 
that my letter to the Index might appear 
the more offensive to the admirers of Mr. 
Dayton ; that he charges me with reproduc- 
ing an article in the Parlor Visitor which I 
had never seen, in order to attach to me 
the odium which he had attached to that 
in the minds of the friends of Mr. Dayton; 
and that I originated in the public mind, 
unkind, and cruel suspicions of Mr. Dayton. 
It is, therefore, unquestionably true that 
Rev. J. R. Graves is guilty of having 
sought to bring upon me reproach, and in- 
jury, and thus to destroy my character, 
and influence in the South-West, and that 
to accomplish this purpose, he has sedu- 
lously labored to bring me into conflict with 
Rev. A. C. Dayton, who had a high repu- 
tation for piety, and usefulness, and to ac- 
complish which he has published in his 
said paper, various false, and malicious rep- 
resentations. 

This count, without further testimony, or 
remarks, I now submit, Brother Moderator, 
to the judgment of the church. I know, 
brethren, with the law, and the facts before 
you, that your decision will be made in the 
fear,*and according to the word of God. 
From your verdict, whatever it may be, I 
will never shrink, I will never appeal. 

Mr. Fuller said : 

Bro. Moderator : I do not rise for the 
purpose of offering auy additional argu- 
ments as to the charge now before the 
church. It seems to be a point in the 
line of policy adopted by J. R. Graves 
that no defence is to be made. It is a 
part of the programme announced by him 
on last night. Such being the case, upoa 
his head must rest all the responsibility, of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



45 



permitting the case to go before the church 
for final judgment without appearing to 
defend it. The members of this church 
have been violently assaulted in the Ten- 
nessee Baptist, and some of its members de- 
nounced as the vilest of the vile. You 
have been taunted and goaded almost be- 
yond human endurance. Efforts have been 
made to browbeat and overawe you by its 
thunders, to prevent you from entertaining 
and considering the charges presented be- 
fore you. And at last, when patient endu- 
rance was exhausted, and the charges 
brought against the accused, what is seen? 
False assertions are made as to their character 
and coarse and vituperative language is em- 
ployed to disparage the reputation of those 
who had the hardihood to present them- 
selves before the church as the accusers of 
J. R. Graves. And even you, or a ma- 
jority of the members of the church, are 
charged by one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist as having been drilled 
to suit the purposes of Graves' accusers. 
If any drilling has been done it will be 
found to be among those who were the 
principal actors in the closing scenes of last 
night. J. R. Graves then announced that 
he withdrew from the First Baptist Church, 
and that he no longer considered him- 
self a member. This may be Baptist usage, 
according to his understanding, and is a 
porversion no worse in its bearings than 
many others that have been heralded forth 
in hfs paper. But I know of only three 
ways of getting out of a Baptist Church — 
1. A letter of dismissal to join another 
Church of the same faith and order. 2. 
Death, which separates all earthly ties. 3. 
Exclusion. And it seems strange to me, 
if J. R. Graves has such perfect confi- 
dence in his innocence as he pretends, he 
should now waive and avoid a fair trial 
before his brethren, where he can meet his 
accuser face to face. Does his failure to 
appear, proclaim his innocence ? After 
having dared the church to entertain 
charges against him, a new light appears to 
have dawned upon his vision, and he now 
seeks to evade the investigation by declar- 
ing you incompetent to act as his judges. 
Why is this? Does it not show a con- 
ciousness of guilt, and a fear of its being 
made manifest by a fair and impartial in- 
vestigation ? Such T think will be the 



verdict of the denomination, when the facts 
are fully placed before them. As one of 
the prosecutors, I have no private purpose 
to subserve. Rather would I rejoice if 
he could exculpate himself from these accu- 
sations. Before they were brought, I care- 
fully examined all the testimony, and was 
unwillingly forced to the conclusion that 
he is guilty as charged before you. And 
I now appeal to you to decide on the evi- 
dence submitted. -Let no consideration of 
private friendship for your pastor, or any 
regard you may entertain for me personally, 
bias or influence your judgments. Re- 
member that the eyes of God himself are 
upon you, and therefore I urge you to act 
and decide as standing in His awful pres- 
ence. TTe are but as dust in His sight. 
It is ours to seek the truth in this matter, 
and having found the truth, boldly and 
firmly to act upon its convictions. With 
a conscious rectitude of motives in the 
prosecution, I leave the ultimate decision 
with you. Upon your decision must the 
accused stand or fall, and from your decision 
there can be no appeal. Fully convinced 
of the guilt of the Rev. J. R. Graves, I 
again call for your decision, and will cheer- 
fully submit to whatever it may be. 

Mr. Fuller moved that the vote be now 
taken, upon the first count in the charge, 
preferred against Elder Graves. 

The Moderator. All who believe that 
this count in the charge against Elder 
Graves, has been sustained by the testimo- 
ny, will rise. 

Upon a count, it was ascertained that 
eighty members were standing. 

The Moderator. All who believe that 
this count in the charge has not been sus- 
tained, by the testimony, will rise. 

~No one rose. 

The Moderator then declared that the 
Church had decided that this count was 
sustained. 

Mr. Fuller stated that the decision of 
the Church by the vote just taken afforded 
him no personal gratification. He had 
acted solely from a sense of duty to his 
Church, and he believed the members of 



46 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R, GRAVES. 



the Church had done their duty in this 
matter. 

Upon motion, 

The Church then adjourned, with prayer 
by the Moderator, to Friday eight at 7 
o'clock. 



Friday Evening. October 15, 

Met pursuaut to adjournment. 

The proceedings were.opeued by reading 
a portion of Scripture, and prayer by the 
Moderator. 

The reading of the minutes of the two 
previous meetings was dispensed with. 

On motion, the second count preferred 
against Elder J. R. Graves, was taken up. 
I as follows: 

Secondly, in that he has endeavored to 
distract and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor and four of 
icons, and several others of its influ- 
ential members, which he has labored to 
produce by various inflammatory articles, 
published in his paper. 

Mr. Pallet stated that the evidence to 
sustain this charge was to be found in vari- 
ous issues of the Tennessee Baptist, which 
he read as f.-ll.-w-: 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 36, March 6, 
••Kv.ry reader cau see that these 
brethren, [referring to Hillsman and How- 
ell,] took the initiative in declaring a war 
against their Landmark brethren, and that 
they, [the Landmark brethren.] are to be 
proscribed from the Boards that direct the 
great interests of Southern Baptists." 
Again: "Should it come to this, who would 
be chargeable with the deplorable results 
that would follow. That man who first ob 
jected to this Board, because he imagined 
that the majority of it were Landmark in 
sentiment." Again: "We urge the Clerk 
or Pastor of each Church, to bring this re- 
solution before their several churches, at 
their next church meeting: Resolved, That 
this church regard the brethren nominated 
as a Board of Managers for the S. B. S. 
School Union, unsound, and wholly incom- 
petent for the work. And if one-half, or a 
small majority of the churches inthe South- 



west and South, say that they regard the 
brethren named — Dayton, Sharpe. Graves, 
Scovel, Shankland. Xelson, Beech, Murfree, 
Poole, Fish — as incompetent to decide on 
books suitable fox Sunday School children, 
we will urge their claims to the confidence 
no more, and bow our heads, aud let pros- 
cription triumph." 

Tennessee Baptist No. 33, April 24, 
1858. J'The names proposed, [and who] 
would have constituted the Board, if elec- 
ted, are Dayton, Graves, Rogers, Scovel, 
Shankland. Nelson. Murfree, Poole, Beech, 
Fish — ten na 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, February 13, 
1858. "The opposition, led by Bin. How- 
ell and Hillsman. burst forth in all its fury 
when the committee made their report." 
'■A most gross and shocking attack was 
made upon the men, or some of the men 
nominated, because of their opinions with 
regard to son."- matters of Baptist policy." 
"Xo one, v\-f presume, will question the 
competency of A. C. Dayton to discharge 
the duties of the Presidency of the Union. " 
"To Bro. Sharpe, we suppose no man 
in Georgia, or out of it. has yet objected, 
as Corresponding Secretary. Bro. S. C. 
Rogers, the Accountant of the Southwes- 
tern Publishing House, was recommended 
for Treasure: . because it was necessary for 
some member of that house to Jill this office if 
the Board was located in Xashrille, since 
money would constantly bf remitted for books 
in the letters S(fd to the house ordering other 
publications.'' 

II. Gr. Scovel, the Chairman of the Board, 
is a man o large means, an intelligent, 
practical business man, deacon of the First 
Baptist Chu.v-h, and has been for years, 
the Superintendent of its Sunday School, 
and a prompt and efficient Board-man. 
Who better qualified than he, for the posi- 
tion of Chairman of the Board? A. B. 
Shankland has been for twelve or fifteen 
years, a Deacon of the First Church, and 
a teacher in its Sunday School, and for 
seven years a dealer in Baptist books. A. 
Nelson, Deacon of the Church, and from 
boyhood until now, either scholor or teacher 
in the Sunday School, and for some years 
connected with a Baptist book store. E. 
F. P. Poole, late of Va., for many years a 
teacher or Superintendent in a Sunday 
School. Wm. F. Murfree a Brother of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



47 



liberal education and fine cultivation, hav- 
ing vears' experience as a Sunday School 
teacher. 

A. 0. Beech, Deacon of First Church, 
and teacher in its Sabbath School. S. 
Fish, for years a Sunday School teacher 
and the efficient Superintendent of the 
Sabbath School in Murfreesboro. 

The above are the names of the BOARD 
nominated by the Committee, and if our 
life depended upon selecting a better Board 
in the First Church of Nashville, to decide 
the proper character of Sunday School 
books, we could not do it They would 
make a better Board for this purpose, than 
would the Senate or any four members of 
the Senate of the United States, or of the 
Parliament of England. "We would prefer 
them to any seven of the most learned men 
in the United States, known to us, be they 
D. D.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were 
trained from earliest childhood, in Sunday 
Schouls, and ever since early mauhuud, 
been teachers or Superintendents in Sun- 
day Schools. To question their ability, is 
to offer them the grossest insult, because it 
would be to deny them the possession of 
natural capacity and common intelligence, fur 
they have had during a long series of years 
the very education and training to fit them 
for the work of deciding the character of 
books best suited to children and youth. 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, Feb. 20, 1858. 
" Brother Howell's attack upon the Board" 
was "such an attack upon men and breth- 
ren before the convention [as] is without a 
precedent in our knowledge. It shocked 
the feelings of every Baptist present who 
heard it, or heard of it, save those three or 
four who were enlisted to defeat the Union. 
That brother H. should lead such an at- 
tack, was as astonishing as it was painful 
to all who loved him. We notice this fea- 
ture of the opposition to the Union with 
regret seldom felt by us, but as we were the 
chairman of the committee that nominated 
those brethren, instrumental in exposing 
them, without their knowledge to such 
shafts, by commending them as every way 
qualified and suitable to decide upon the 
proper character of Sunday School Books, 
we feel in duty bound to defend them." 

Same paper again : "What then can be 
the charge against these men ? If they 



possess the requisite piety, morality, and 
intellectual it n , what do they lack ? If they 
are not heretical in doctrine, and possessed 
of the above rare qualifications, what better 
Board is needed ? In what respect are they 
bo sadly, so fatally disqualified, that no body 
of men like them tcould be accepted by Bro. 
Howell to purvey theology to his children ? 
I In what light can we place them, admitting 
[them so qualified, as to conclude with Bro. 
Howell that they are wholly incompetent to 
discharge the duties assigned to that Board? 
We searched in vain to find it in the letter, 
; and then tried in vain to imagine it. We 
I knew it could not be their business qualifi- 
cations, for they are well known in this city 
I to be among our most reliable businessmen, 
I men who have been the architects of their 
own fortunes, men long used to manage dis- 
creetly large amounts of money, from fifty 
thousand to hundreds of thousands annual- 
ly. Here we recurred in our mind to Bro. 
Howell's speech in the convention, in which 
lie gave his reasons for opposing the Board, 
that it seemed to point to the pecuniary 
interests of private individual enterprise." 
"What circumstances excited suspicion 
but the bare fact that such men were nom- 
inated? What is the force of brother H.'s 
significant, — we had almost written, sneer- 
ing expression in his letter, ' then why 
create a Board here, and especially such a 
Board, &c. ; We ask brother H. with all 
due respect and courtesy, what he means by 
emphasizing the term such ? Does he mean 
that these four deacons of his own church, 
as well as the three other brethren nomi- 
nated, are so ignorant or unprincipled as to 
unfit them for the work ? If not, why say 
derisively, * and especially such a Board V 
We think an explanation is due the 
committee and due these brethren. It 
would be demanded from another man, we 
are confident." 

Again : "What a cruel suspicion — aye, 
what a gross insult is offered to the men 
whose names were nominated for that 
Board." 

"Here are the names nominated for a 
Board by that committee : H. G-. Scovel, 
A. B. Shankland, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech, 
E. F. P. Poole, Wm. Murfree, and S. Fish." 
" We affirm that these men are above 
suspicion in the respect intimated. They 
are not the men who can be corrupted by 



4S 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



bribe or by favor. They are not the men — 
not a man of them — who could be influ- 
enced by any means to violate the confidence 
of the denomination, or to prostitute any 
trust confided in them, to promote the pe- 
cuniary interests of individuals at the ex- 
pense of the best interests of the denomi- 
nation. No grosser insult could have been 
intimated than to suppose they could be 
used in this way." 

'- Who are the men nominated for a 
Board that brother H. is so Unwilling to 
purvey theology for bis children, ' or any 
other like (hem? Four of them are the most 
efficient deacons of the First Church, H. G. 
Scovel, A. B. Shanklaud, A. Nelson, A. C. 
Beech. They are pious, intelligent, ener- 
getic business men. The first named broth- 
er has for many years been the Superin- 
tendent of the Sunday School, and all, or 
nearly all of them experienced teachers in 
the Sunday School. Brother Howell should 
withdraw his children, and advise all other 
parents to withdraw their children from the 
instruction of such men if they are unsafe 
purveyors of religious instruction to any 
man's children. If they are either unsafe 
to be trusted, wholly incompetent to decide 
upon what should be taught to children in 
Sunday School books, they are even more 
unsafe and incompetent to teach children 
directly in the Sunday School. "We again 
say of these men, against any man's denial, 
that six better qualified men, either to 
manage the finances of the Union or to pur- 
vey theology for any man's children — to 
decide upon the books suitable for children 
— could not be selected in this city, or any 
city in the South. We would prefer them 
to any seven of the most learned men in 
the United States, known to us, be they 
D. D.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were 
trained from earliest childhood, in Sunday 
Schools, and ever since early manhood, been 
teachers or superintendents in Sunday 
Schools. To question their ability, is -to 
offer them the grossest insult, because it 
would be to deny them the possession of 
natural capacity and common intelligence." 

Mr. Fuller stated that the prosecution 
offered this evidence to sustain the second 
count in the charge preferred against Elder 
J. R. Graves. 

The Moderator called upon Elder Graves, 



if he was present, to submit any rebutting 
testimony he might desire ; or if any other 
person desired to present such testimony, 
it will now be received. 

There being no further testimony offered, 
Dr. Howell said : 

Brother Moderator, and Brethren : 

On this second count of the charge 
against J. R. Graves, it has become my 
duty to address you, for the same reasons 
that were imperative last night. The state- 
ment of those reasons I need not now re- 
peat. In these remarks, which shall be as 
brief as possible, I shall have occasion to 
reproduce, and more closely examine, all 
the testimony in the specifications under 
the count now before you. The count is 
as follows : 

COUNT SECOND. 

"We, the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the Editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral, and 
unchristian conduct, in that he has endeavored 
to distract, and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor, and four of 
its deacons, and several others of its influen- 
tial members, which he has labored to produce 
by numerous inflammatory articles, published 
in his p>aper. 

The sin, brother Moderator, and breth- 
ren, with which Mr. Graves is here charged, 
is usually denominated schism, and is one 
of the most heinous of which a church 
member can be guilty. It is an attempt to 
tear asunder the body of Christ, the integ- 
rity, and harmony of which, he is under 
the most sacred obligations to seek by every 
means in his power. On this subject Paul 
says, to the Corinthians — 1 Cor. 1 : 10> — 
"I beseech you brethren, by the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak 
the same thing, and that there be no di- 
visions among you, but that ye be perfectly 
joined together in the same mind and in 
the same judgment." And in another 
place — 1 Cor., 3 : 3 — ""Whereas there is 
among you envying, and strife, and divis- 
ion, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" 
To the Romans he says — Rom., 16 : 17, 18 
— "I beseech you brethren, mark them that 
cause divisions, and offences, contrary to 



TRIAL OF REV. J R. GRAVES. 



40 



the doctrine which ye have learned, and 

-.'. em. For they serve not ti. 

1 hrist, but their own belly, and by 

aad fair sp . .ive the 

] simi- 

I ;ngs in 

to the conduct with which, under 

.this count. Mr. Graves is charged. 

Mr. Graves attempts to deuj your right 
to take cognizance of these repeated, and 
ring attacks upon the union aud in- 
of this church, under the absurd 
: this is a private personal mat- 
him and his pastor I He as- 
th in the correspondence road 
here on Tuesday night, and, in which, you 
_ ssly he had deceived brethren 
rford, Campbell, Buck. Baker, 
and others, and in his pleas, entered to 
: d. Why does he thu- i 
- 
Docs he imagine that you do not know the 
d a private personal of- 
fense, and a public protracted, and violent 
'.vide, overthrow, and destroy 
this church ? 

The plea upon which he makes these 
assaults upon rity and harmony of 

urch is the same in this ease, a> in 
the oth — :h made by me, in tha J 

Sabbath School Convention in this city. 
bum n, and the letter referred to in] 
the preceding count, published iu the* 
Christian Index, of Georgia. The sub- 
stance of both is contained in the letter. 
which I ask. brother Moderator, may now 
be read. It ought to have been read last J 
night, but the reading escaped my memory 
until the proper time was past. 

The Moderator : Do you desire that the 
whole letter shall be read ? 

Dr. Howell: Fes Sir; the whole letter. 
I wish this church to see how shamefully' 
it has been misrepresented : and especially i 
that it gives no such provocations as some 
cf you have supposed, for the assaults Mr. 
Graves has founded upon it. 

Mr. Fuller, by consent, read the letter, ; 
as follows : 

Nashville, Dec. 21, 1857. 

ATy Dear Brother Walker: — I write now ' 

to inquire whether you have published a ; 

communication I sent you, some time ago. | 

in regard to the origin and earlv history of ! 



the Index. I have not seen it. Lately, 
owing doubtless to the derangement of the 
mails, not, perhaps, more than half your 
papers ever reach me. If the article has 
appeared, will you please mail me another 
copy of the paper containing it? 

Our Sabbath School Convention seems 
to have attracted very considerable atten- 
tion. On that subject I may. perhaps 
without impropriety, say a few words to 
your readers. 

The call for that Convention was credited 
to me, and up to the time of its meeting. I 
notwithstanding some developments 
which I did not comprehend, in my sim- 
plicity, supposed myself to have been its 
author. It is certain, however, that I did 
template the purposes which wore 
developed in the assembly. I presumed 
that it would be such a Convention as those 
frequently of late years, held iu Virginia, 
in which might be presented the impor- 
tance of Sunday Schools, the best meth- 
ods of creating, and rendering them per- 
manent, the most successful way of con- 
ducting them, and bow we could best and 
I rate with each other 
lout the whole South, in their ad- 
vancement. Nor did I imagine that a con- 
stitution would be proposed to render the 
organisation permanent under any name 
whatever. To this, however, when in gen- 
eral terms suggested, I accorded, still un- 
der the impression that nothing more than 

si n intimated was designed. Indeed, 
I thought it would be an excellent plan, and 
until the constitution was submitted, ear- 
nestly advocated it. When that paper 
was read, the whole truth came up before 
me. It was then apparent that the call 
for the Convention was not mine, and I am 
now glad that it was not. Xot having been 
consulted at all by the movers in the enter- 

isf nor had any explanations, I was. it 
seen s, behind the times, and left, when the 
project was evolved, either to go, willingly 
or unwillingly; with the crowd in its favor, 
or to fall out of the ranks into a hopeless 
minority, as I might choose. All this 
brother Dayton has explained and certified 
in an article lately published in your paper 
and several others. You are aware, my 
dear brother — for I was once your pastor, 
and vou know me well — that I am an en- 
thusiast on any subject that deeply interests 



;o 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVE? 



me. I never conceal any of nay designs, 
nor suspect any one else of doing so. In 
ruy zeal for Sunday Schools, I saw only 
■what "was apparent. If any attempt to 
make use of me, for any purpose, without 
in}- knowledge or consent, has been devel- 
oped, I regret it most sincerely, not so 
much for my own sake, as for the sake of 
those brethren who thought such a meas- 
ure legitimate. This explains to brethren 
Dayton and others, why "Dr. Howell ad- 
vocated Sunday Schools as he did," in the 
Concord Association, and yet could not, for 
reasons he is always ready to assign, ac- 
cept, in the form proposed," Tlie & 

I Sunday School Union." It was her- 
alded last Bummer, bj* brother Dayton, that I 
the Convention was called at the instance . 
of brother Howell. It is now heralded by 
the B&me brother, and in the same papers, 
that it was called at his instance, in consul- 
tation with brother J. R. Graves, and of 
which brother Howell was made the passive j 
These are facts, and I speak 
only of facts developed by a general inspec- 
tion of all the publications in the premises, 
which appeared in the meeting, and have 
since found their way iuto the newspapers. > 
i rry that they are such as they are, ' 

but I am not responsible for them; and, 
that they should be known, is due alike to 
m ■, to my brethren, and to the cause in 
which we are all engaged. 

I cannot, my dear brother, accept the j 
1 Constitution, in its present form, 
of the Southern Baptist Sunday School 
Union, not only because we had no such j 
delegation present as (not knowing the 
mind of our brethren) authorized us to act 
for the South, but also, and mainly, because 
it originated another Southern Baptist Pub-] 
Society. We already have one, | 
which is just now reaching a vigorous ma-| 
turity, and having accumulated a capital of 
say forty thousand dollars, and under the ! 
direction of a Board of managers, in whose j 
piety, orthodoxy, wisdom, learning and in- j 
tegrity, I have as much confidence as I 
could have in those of any men living up- 
on earth. I have thought they might have 
acted with more energy, and have given to 
their publications a wider circulation, espe- 
cially in the Southwest; but my information 
on this subject is not suficient to entitle my 
^pinions to any reliance. This Society is 



Especially charged with the publication of 
Sunday School books, and as its reports- 
show, is publishing them as fast as it can 
procure the manuscripts, and the means to 
send them forth. And shall we now create 
in the same field, and for the same objects, 
another Society entrusted with the very 
work already confided to this? Would this, 
even supposing the new Society to be in 
every sense as competent as the old, be just 
to that Society? Would it be just to our- 
selves? Would it be good policy? To me, 
this whole thing is repugnant. We are 
told, however, by your correspondent, that 
no harm will thus be done to the Southern 
Baptist Publication Society. Indeed, that 
it will be rather benefitted than injured by 
the presence and action of this new organi- 
zation! That brother, should he take it in- 
to his head to wear my coat this winter, 
might just as well attempt to prove to me 
that by doing so, he would put me to no 
inconvenience; that indeed, it would be a 
benefit to me rather than an injury. The 
writer of Theodosia Ernest ought not to 
pive us such logic as this. We are shock- 
ed by it rather than satisfied. 

"But we are told by the newspapers that 
this very brother is himself, rapidly prepar- 
ing Sunday School books, and that several 
will be ready, and actually presented to the 
Union" in April next, at Americus, in 
your State. Very well. Let him prepare 
them, if the Bible Board will allow their 
Corresponding Secretarj- to devete nearly 
all his time to writing books, and instead of 
presenting them to the 'Union,' let him send 
them to the Southern Baptist Publication 
Society. If they are such books as the 
Baptists approve, that Society will publish 
them, and for as small a price and in as 
good style as the work can be done else- 
where in the South or Southwest." And 
let that h Sweet Singer" also, brother Fish, 
of which the Tennessee Baptist speaks as 
now preparing lt songs for Children," do the 
same thing. Until the Southern Baptist 
Publication Society fails to do the work as- 
signed it, we want no other. 

Nor can I accept that proposed local 
hoard in this city, whose names were laid 
upon the table, in the Convention in defer- 
ence to the appeals of an earnest minority, 
or any other like it, as the purveyor of the- 
ology for my children. I am sorry that in 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVE; 



51 



reference to that action in the Convention 
brother Dayton .-aid. in a voice of lamen- 
tation, in the article he appended to the 
publication of the projected constitution, 
that the best hope of the Baptist people 
must now be deferred until next April. I 
am not convinced that our btst hopes are 
necessarily connected with the action of that 
local board here, and if they were, the de- 
claration would come more modestly from 
some one else than its proposed president. 
I bring no charge against the christian, 
moral, or intellectual character of these 
brethren. They are nearly all members of 
my church, and several of them among 
the dearest personal friends I have upon 
earth. Nor do I refer especially to the 
''Landmark" doctrine, known to be "a 
hobby'' among them; which by the way 
they do not understand, since they have 
never yet learned the teachings of the Bi- 
ble, nor the opinions of our brethren in 
the South, regarding it. There are several 
other doctrines inculcated in that office, 
such as those relating to the Abrahamic 
covenant, to the law of prophetic interpre- 
tation, and the millenium, which, although 
they do not invite, and bring upon us, the 
same useless odium, are practically much 
more injurious. And what, I will now ask. 
is the use of this proposed Board at all? 
They tell us that if the books that may be 
offered can be published any where else than 
in the Tennessee Baptist office, in Charles- 
ton for instan ee, upon as good or better terms, 
that they shall be published Charleston. 
Then why create a Board here, and especi- 
ally saeh a Board, to examine and pass upon 
them? Why not submit the manuscripts to 
the Board in Charleston? Does not the 
creation of a Board here to examine and 
approve the manuscripts, intimate the prob- 
ability that our brethren are afraid that the 
books they have written, or intend to write. 
would not be approved by such men as 
Manly, Winkler, Tupper, and others of the 
Charleston Board. But besides all this — I 
say in the kindest terms — this particular 
proposed Board, excellent as may be the 
personal and christian character of its mem- 
bers, is, in my judgment, wholly incompe- 
tent to the task it is contemplated to assign 
it. 

I do not expect to be in Americus next 
ApriL I suppose I shall not be. Xor do 



' I know to what extent my opinions might 
influence the brethreu there. Perhaps 
nothing will be gained or lost by my ab- 
sence. I will only say further, that, upon 
mature consideration, I have arrived at the 
conclusion that no good can arise out of 
this movement. I was strongly in favor of 
such an organization as I have described, 
to infuse life and spirit into Sunday Schools 
in the Southwest. We cannot, it 

I have it by itself. I am, therefore, opposed 
to the whole project, and do hope that by 
the brethren who may be at Americus in 
April next, it will be laid upon the table, 
and remain there indefinitely. 

Afl ever, vours trulv and affectionately, 
R. B. C. Howell.' 

Br. Howell continued: — 

It will be seen, brother Moderator, that 
in this letter I said: 

"Nor can I accept that proposed local 
Board, whose names were laid upon the 
table in deference to the appeals of an ear- 
nest minority, or any other like it, as the 
purveyor of theology for my children." 

Further on in the same letter I said: 

"I bring no charge against the christian, 
moral, or intellectual character of these 
brethren. They are nearly all members of 
my church, and several of them among the 
dearest personal friends I have upon earth." 

Xear the close of the letter I said: 

'•Why create a Board here, and especi- 
ally such a Board, to examine and pass 
upon them? Why not submit the manu- 
scripts to the Board in Charleston?" "But 
besides all this — I say it in the kindest 
terms — this particular proposed Board, ex- 
cellent as may be the personal, and chris- 
tian character of its members, is. in my 
judgment, wholly incompetent to the task 
it is contemplated to assign it." 

These extracts, be it remembered, con- 
tain the whole of my alleged offense against 
the Deacons, and other members named of 
this church, and upon which Mr. Graves 
lays hold to effect a division in your body. 
Xothing else, so far as I know, has ever 
been pretended. These facts fully before 
. you, we are prepared to take another step in 
the discussion 

Our mortal offence was the opposition 
'we made to the inauguration of that 
1 Board. I was not alone in that oppo- 



52 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



sition. I spoke and voted against it, and | 
so also did some of you. Let us now see | 
■who were to have been the members of that j 
Boaid, and how Mr. Graves prevaricates in J 
relation to them. Would that Board have 
been composed of four of the Deacons, and 
two or three oilier members of this church? In 
the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, dated Feb- 
ruary 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves mentions, by 
name, II. G. Scovel, A. B. Shankland, A. 
Ijfclson, E. F. F. Foole, W. L. Murfree, 
A. C. Beech, and S. Fish, all of whom ex- 
cept Mr. Puole, who has since united with 
us, ami Mr. Fish of Murfreesborough, are 
members of this church, and says: il 7he 
names of the BOARD, nomina- 
ted by the committee." Again, he says, 
Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, February 20th, 
1858: "Here are the names nominated by 
that Committee: H. G. Scovel, A. B. 
Shankland, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech, E. F. 
F. Poole, Win. Murfree, S. Fish." And 
again, in another place, he says: "i 
them are the most efficient Deacons of the 
First Church— -II. G. Scovel, A. B. Shank- 
land, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech" Mr. 
Graves, therefore, very assiduously labors 
to impress his readers, with the idea that 
these four Deacons, wbose names he so of- 
ten, and so earnestly repeats, and two or 
three others would have composed that 
Board. He says again, and again: "These 
are the names nominated for a Board." 
Fid those brethren compose the Board? 
Mr. Graves himself shall auswer. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 20, dated 
March 0th, 1858, he says: 

" Every reader can see that these breth- 
ren [Hillsman and Howell] took the initia- 
tive in declaring a war against their LAND- 
MARK brethren, and that THEY [the Land- 
mark brethren] arc to be proscribed from 
the Boards that direct the great interests 
of Souhtern Baptists." "Should it come to 
this, who would be chargeable with the de- 
plorable results that woutd follow ? That 
man who first objected to tin's Board, because 
he imagined that a majority of it were 
Landmark in sentiment." He then, in 
this same article, proposes one of those ex- 
traordinary measures so characteristic of 
Mr. Graves, which, it appears to me, no 
sane man ever could approve, and which, 
by all our denominational papers that spoke 



on the subject, was so decidedly condemned, 
as follows : 

"We urge the Clerk or Pastor of each 
church [throughout the whole South, and 
South-west] to bring this resolution before 
their several churches, at their next church 
meeting :" 

"Resolved, That this church regard the 
brethren nominated as a Board of Man- 
agers, for the S. B. S. School Union, un- 
sound, and wholly incompetent for the 

"And if one half, or a small majority of 
the churches in the South-west, and South, 
say that they regard the brethren named, 
Dayton, Sharpe, Graves, Scovel, Shankland 
Nelson, Beech, Murfree, Poole, Fish, as 
incompetent to decide ou books suitable for 
Sunday School children, we will urge their 
claims to the confidence no more, and bow 
our heads, and let proscription triumph." 

And in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 33, 
dated April 24th, 1858, Mr. Graves says : 

"The names proposed, [and who] would 
have constituted the board, if elected, are 
DAYTON,<HtAVES, Rogers, Scovel, Shank- 
land, Nelson, Murfree, Poole, Beech, Fish, 
ten /panes." 

In these statements of Mr. Graves there- 
fore, although his catalogues are very dif- 
ferent from each other, it is seen substan- 
tially, who this proposed Board would have 
been, as understood by him, aud as under- 
stood by me. When laboring to stir up 
strife between the pastor and deacons, and 
thus divide this church, they are these 
said deacons and three others, Murfree, 
Poole, and Fish ; but when afterwards his 
thoughts were in another direction, there 
is a change in the persons of the drama ! 
He then recollects the other names ! No 
one who examines these facts can avoid 
seeing with what ingenuity — to use no 
stronger expression — he attempted to carry 
out his schismatical design. 

Why should Mr. Graves ignore the plain 
sense of my letter, and attempt, as we have 
seeu, to make those four deacons and those 
other brethren mentioned, believe, that my 
purpose was to disparage them ? I did not 
mean when I spoke of the board to 
designate as that Board those four deacons 
and two other lay members of this church. 
Such a thought was not in my mind. I 
thought those brethren, so far as I knew 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



53 



any tiling of their doctrine, entirely ortho- 
dox. I considered them, also, highly cul- 
tivated, active, and faithful Christians. I 
did not suppose, that they would knowing- 
ly have permitted any thing, unscriptural, 
to come forth under their auspices, as Sun- 
day School literature. Nor did I make, or 
intimate such a charge, in my letter to the 
Christian Index; nor did 1, in that letter, 
make any offensive imputation on any mem- 
thai board. So far from it, I stated 
in express terms: "I bring no charge 
against the christian, moral, or intel- 
lectual character of these brethren [The 
members of the proposed board.] They 
are nearly all members of my church, and 
several of" them among the dearest personal 
friends I have upon earth." How could it 
be urged, in the face of this declaration, 
that I made, in that letter, personal impu- 
tations upon those brethren. 

It is true, that in that letter I took a 
stand in opposition to the proposed board. 
And allow me here brother Moderator and 
brethren to state the facts and reasons 
which influenced me when I said: " Why 
create a board here, and especially such a 
board, to examine and pass upou them [the 
manuscripts] ? Why not submit the man- 
uscripts to the board in Charleston?" "But 
besides all this — I say it in the kindest 
terms — this particular proposed board, ex- 
cellent as may be the personal and Christian 
character of its members, is in my judgment 
wholly incompetent to the task, it is eon- 
ex* plated to assign it." The members of 
tuat board were, with two exceptions — El- 1 
ders Graves and Dayton — lay-members of 
our own, and other Baptist Churches, hon- 
orable, energetic, intelligent business men. 
To those Deacons and the other brethren, 
I meant no disparagement, in imagining 
that they, at this late period of their lives, 
were not likely, so far to change their [ 
habits and pursuits, as to turn book makers, I 
and book reviewers. Nor does Mr. Graves I 
speak of them, as will hereafter be seen, as' 
critics in these matters— as those from whom 
he expected literary and theological aid; 1 
so much as "business men;" men to man- 
age the finances of the Union. And be- j 
sides this, it is very well known that theo- i 
logical errors may be so infused into a book i 
that the mere cursory reading of the manu- 
script, by men not profoundly versed in ! 



Polemic Divinity, may fail to detect its 
l presence. And what more than a cursory 
reading could have been expected from 
; these u business men ? " Indeed it seemed 
to me that opportunity might not have of- 
fered for even that much. 

When there was formerly a Publication 
I Society in this city, with which Mr. Graves 
I was connected, the board of that Society 
| was composed of as noble a set of brethren 
! as those nominated for this Sunday School 
1 Union; indeed several of them were the very 
same men ; and it is well known that it was 
the habit of Mr. Graves, to take the manu- 
': script, or the proof sheets of any work he 
desired to publish, and going round to the 
offices, and other places of business of the 
members, or meeting them on the streets, 
to show it to them, state in general terms 
what it was, and ask their approval of its 
publication. But under the most favorable 
circumstances, the pressure of business en- 
; gagements, would, it seemed to me, pre- 
clude those brethren from any other than a 
1 cursory examination of the manuscripts 
proposed for publication. 

It struck me that in this state of the case, 
the character of the Sunday School books 
, would depend mainly upon the opinions of 
the other two members of the Board, Elders 
Graves and Dayton. 

The man who writes Sunda}' School books 
or upon whose judgment they are published, 
and put into the hands of our children, 
should be well instructed in the divine 
word, and scriptural in his doctrines. And 
as it is desirable that a Sunday School Un- 
ion should be an enterprise upon which the 
whole denomination might unite, his theo- 
logical knowledge and orthodoxy should be 
undoubted by all. Could the whole denom- 
ination unite upon the views and teachings 
of Elders Graves and Dayton ? The Ten- 
nessee Baptist is understood to teach, that 
of the old Jewish law, all that part is in as 
full force as it ever was, which relates to 
circumcision ; it endorses the doctrine as 
scriptural which was some time since known 
as Millerism, in regard to the Millenium, 
and more recently, in the South known as 
Thomasism, characteristic of an ultra school 
of Campbellites, and actually disowned by 
Mr. Campbell himself; all of which Mr. 
Dayton teaches in his recent work entitled 
the Baptist Sunday School Question Book. 



54 



TRIAL OF EEV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Nor are these the most unscriptural of their 
principles. I will not, however, now des- 
ignate them, nor will I speak of the spirit, 
by which Mr. Graves' publications are 
characterized. Even Mr. Graves' own 
friends, and especially the intelligent and 
well read among them, do not endorse his 
orthodoxy. Rev. Dr. Joseph S. Baker, for 
example, one of his special defenders, and 
champions, the writer of his tract entitled 
"The Question of the Age," says of him 
on this subject — Christian Index, dated 
April 28th, "1858 : 

"I do not endorse the Theology of the 
brethren in Nashville, [Graves, Pendleton, 
and Dayton,] I am a believer in ay rsonal 
atonement, and believe that all for whom 
the Savior has atoned, will be assuredly 
saved ; not in sin, hut from sin, and all its 
direful consequences." " I am not a con- 
vert to their views of the premtlknial reign 
of Christ on earth, or of the reorganization 
of the Jews as a nation, in Palestine." 

And may I Dot say also, and say it without 
offence, neither do I endorse their ortho- 
doxy. And this is the utmost construction 
which could be placed upon my letter to the 
Christian Index. In it I wronged no mem- 
ber of that Board. I assailed no member. 
Viewing the board as a whole, I stated in 
effect that I could not endorse it. I have 
now stated the reasons why I could not en- 
dorse it. Those reasons were not that I 
doubted the intelligence, or the honor, or 
the orthodoxy of the lay brethren, who in 
part composed it, but they do not claim to 
be theologians and from the claims of then- 
business upon their time, and their thoughts, 
it could not be expected, that, under the 
most favorable circumstances, they could 
bestow more than a brief attention on the 
manuscripts submitted to them. The Sun- 
day School books would depend mainly 
upon the judgment of the ministerial mem- 
bers of the Board. Nor did I in that let- 
ter question the intelligence or the honor 
of those ministerial members. But I could 
not endorse, as many other brethren could 
not endorse, their orthodoxy. In my opin- 
ion, as in the opiuion of other honest breth- 
ren, men of learning and ability, they en- 
tertained erroneous views, which I feared 
would pervade the Sunday School litera- 
ture, which might emanate from the board. 
And I honestly, and conscientiously, yet 



courteously opposed the board, in which, 
from the circumstances of the case, they 
would most probably exert a strong influ- 
ence, which I feared would prove highly 
injurious to the orthodoxy of the rising 
generation. In this I can see no cause for 
blame. There was, in that letter, nothing 
to provoke, or to justify the violent and 
persistent attacks made upon us by Mr. 
Graves. If he were offended with that let- 
ter, it was his duty as a Christian, to have 
come to me for an explanation. That would 
have been frankly given, and it would have 
been explained to Mr. Graves, that I neither 
impugned the motives of him and Elder 
Dayton, nor assailed the integrity, the in- 
telligence, or the orthodoxy of the other 
brethren. He would have been frankly 
informed, that I only questioned the scrip- 
tuality of his views, and opposed the board, 
because I feared it would become the means 
of extending error. This should have been 
no cause of personal hostility between us. 
As Christians, and servants of one common 
Lord, we could agree to differ. But 
instead of this he disregarded the law of 
our Savior : he assailed us in his paper : he 
attempted to stir up strife between Elder 
Dayton and myself, and it has been seen 
that he succeeded but too well in exciting 
hostility in his breast towards me : he at- 
tempted to excite hostility in four of the 
deacons and other influential members of 
the church against me, and by thus produ- 
cing a conflict, to distract and divide the 
church. 

I proceed to notice the specifications un- 
der the present count. 

SPECIFICATION FIRST. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, dated 
February 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves says : 

1 '■The opposition led by brethren Howell 
and Hillsman burst forth in all its fury, when 
the committee made their report" nomina- 
ting the Board. " A most gross, and shock- 
ing attack was made [by brother Howell] 
upon the men or some of the men nominated, 
because of their opinions with regard to 
some matters of Baptist policy;" [Land- 
markism.] " No one we presume, will ques- 
tion the competency of A. C. Dayton to 
discharge the duties of the Presidency of 
the Union." " To brother Sharpe, we sup- 
pose no man in Georgia, or out of it, has 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



55 



yet objected as Corresponding Secretary." [the very education, and training, to fit them 
" Bro. S. C. Rogers, the Accountant of the j for the work of deciding the character of 
South Western Publishing House, was reeom- ! books best suited to children and youth." 
mended for Treasurer, because it was neces- I solicit attention brother Moderate, to 
saryfow - tier of that House to fill several things in these extracts evincive 

: the Board was locoted in Xash- of the truth of the charge now preferred 
ville, since money would be constantly re- against Mr. Graves. 

mitted for books, in the letters sent to the\ 1. He declares that I assaulted these 
House, ordering other publications." "H. G. brethren — catalogues of whom he gives sev- 
Scovel, the chairman of the Board £of Man- reral times — FURIOUSLY ; that I made upon 
agers] is a man of large means, an intelli- j them a "most gross and shocking attack." Mr. 



Graves names four men. By lookiug fur- 
ther on we find whom he designates by these 
"four" men. They are four deacons of this 
church, Scovel, Shankland, Nelson, and 



pent, practical business man, Deacon of ilie 
First Baptist Church, and has been for years, 
the Superintendent of its Sunday School, 
and a prompt and efficient Board man. "Who 

better qualified than he, for the position of Beech , aud then he names seven ; of whom 
Chairman of the Board? A. B. Shankland six only are members of this church, the 
has been for twelve or fifteen years, a deacon above and two others. Why does Mr. 
of the First Chwrcli, and teacher in its Sun- 1 Graves so earnestly persuade these brethren, 
day School, and for seven years a dealer in j and reiterate it in his newspaper, week after 
Baptist books. A. Xelson, deacon of £/iejweek, that I have assailed them furiously? 
church, and from boyhood until now, either | Why does he fill his columns with the de- 
scholar or teacher in the Sunday School, and claration, that I have made upon them a 
for some years connected with a Baptist book j "Most gross and shocking attack." Why 
store. E. E. P. Poole, hte of Virginia, j does he insist upon it so frequently, that I 
for many years a teacher or Superintendent have offered them " the grossest in- 



ln a Sunday School. Wm. F. Murfree, a 
brother of liberal education, and fine culti- 
vation, having years' experience as a Sun- 
day School teacher. A. C. Beech, deacon 
of First Church, and teacher in its Sabbath 
School. S. Fish, for years a Sunday School 
teacher, and the efficient Superintendent of 
the Sabbath School at Murfreesborough." 
" The above are the names of the Board 
nominated by the committee, and if our 
life depended upon selecting a better board 
in the First Church of Xashv-ille, to decide 
the proper character of Sunday School 
books, we could not do it. They would make 



BUM?" I say nothing now of the fact 
that all this is utterly false. . I shall have 
occasion for that fact hereafter. What coidd 
he his design but to set these brethren at vari- 
ance with their Pastor f 

2. Mr. Graves becomes the voluntary 
champion, and defender of these brethren 
against the alleged attacks of their Pastor! 
He declares that I have assailed them furi- 
ously; that I have made upon them a "Most 
gross and shocking attack; aud that I, as he al- 
leges, have offered them "the grossest in- 
sult!" He is their defender ! He tells them 
it is his duty. Yes he will defend them ! 



a better board for this purpose, than would And his defense of them, how delicate it is, I 
the Senate, or any four Members of the need not remind you. They are all exeel- 
•Sexate of the United States, or of j lent, intelligent, well educated, and some 
the Parliament of England. We would j of them classically educated brethren, 
prefer them to any seven of the most learn- In their several departments no men 
ed men in, the United States known to us, be 1 in this city stand higher than they do. 
they D. D.'s, orL.L. D.'s. These men were | But he pronounces the four, my deacons, 
trained from earliest childhood, in Sunday! as he pleased to call them, superior for his 
Schools; and ever since early manhood, been j purposes, to any four members of the Sen- 
teaehers, or Superintendents in the Sunday \ate of the United States, or of the Parlia- 



Schools. To question their ability, is to 
offer them the grossest insult, because it 
would be to deny them the possession of nat- 
ural capacity, and common intelligence, for 
they have had during a long series of years, j known to him i In this fulsome style he 



ment of England; and that the seven (that 
he supposed to be members of this church, 
but was mistaken, only six being members) 
vastly excel any seven D. D.'s, or L. L. D.'s 



56 



TRIAL OF REV. J R GRAVES 



defends these brethren against alleged as- 
sit nils of their Pastor! Did he wish them to 
love, or even to respect their Pastor ? Was 
he not seeking, and that too by falsehood, 
and detraction on the one hand, and the 
most offensive and fulsome flattery on the 
other, to set them against their Pastor? 

3. Mr. Graves affirms that J made upon 
that proposed Board this furious onset ; this 
" gross, and shocking attack;" offered them 
this "gross insult;" because of their Lnn d- 
markism, which he denominates "their 
opinions on some matters of Baptist policy;" 
and that too, with my written, and pub- 
lished declaration before his eyes, in the 
letter which he pretends to answer, that 
I ivas not influenced by that consideration. 
lie did this under the mistaken impression 
doubtless, that nearly all of these members, 
were in his sense Laudmarkers. In this 
appeal, as in several others, he overreached 
himself, but it is not on that account, the 
less apparent that it was his design to put 
the officers of this church in conflict with 
its Pastor. And what could he gain by 
putting brethren Scovel, Shankktnd, Nel- 
son, Beech, Murfree, and Poole, even if he 
had succeeded in doing so, as to all of them, 
at variance with their pastor? What else 
could he gain but confusion and division 
in the church, and perhaps its entire ovtr- 
throw ? His schismatical purpose is not to 
b ■ mistakt n. 

SPECIFICATION SECOND. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 24, dated 
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves says : 

"Brother HowelVs attack upon the Board" 
was "such an attack upon men, and brcth- 
; f», before the Convention, and in their 
presence [as] is without a precedent in our 
knowledge It shocked the feelings of 
every Baptist present who heard it, or heard 
of it, save those three or four who were en- 
listed to defeat the Union.' That brother H. 
should lead such an attack, was as astonish- 
ing, as it was painful to all who loved him. 
We notice this feature of the opposition to 
the Union with regret seldom felt by us, but 
as we were the Chairman of the committee 
that nominated those brethren, instrumental 
in exposing them without their knowledge, to 
such shafts, by commending them as every 
way qualified, and suitable to decide upon 
the proper character of Sunday School 



books, wt feel in dutg bound to defend 

THEM." 

Referring here, to my high commenda- 
tion of these very brethren, in my Index 
letter, Mr. Graves goes on to say — well 
knowing that I had made no charge against 
them : — 

"What then can be the charge against 
these men ? If they possess the requisite 
piety, morality, and intellectuality, what do 
they lack ? If they are not heretical in 
doctrine, and possessed of the above rare 
qualifications, what better Board is needed? 
In what respect are they so sadly, so fatally 
disqualified, that no body of men like them, 
would be accepted by brother Howell, to 
purvey theology for his children ? In 
what light can we place them, admitting 
them so qualified, as to conclude with broth- 
er Howell, that they are wholly incompe- 
tent to discharge the duties assigned to that 
Board ? We searched in vain to find it in 
the letter, and then tried in vain to imagine 
it. Wc knew it could not be their business 
qualifications, for they are well known in 
this city, to be among our most reliable bus- 
iness men; men who have been the archi- 
tects of their own fortunes; men long used 
to manage discreetly, large amounts of money, 
from fifty thousand to hundreds of thou- 
sands annually. Here we recurred in our 
mind to brother Howell's speech in the 
Convention, in which he gave his reasons 
for opposing the Board, that it seemed to 
point to the pecuniary interests of private in- 
dividual enterprise" "What circumstances 
excited suspicion but the bare fact that 
sueh men were nominated? What is the 
force of brother H.'s significant — we had 
almost written sneering — expression in his 
letter, 'Then why create a Board here, and 
especially such a Board?' &c. We ask brother 
H. with all due respect, and courtesy, what 
he means by emphacising the term such? 
Does he mean that these four Deacons of 
his own CHURCH, as well as the three other 
brethren nominated, are so ignorant, or 
unprincipled, as to unfit them for the work? 
If not, why say derisively, 'And especially 
such a Board V We think an explanation 
is due the committee, and due these breth- 
ren. It would be DEMANDED FROM ANOTH- 
ER MAN, we are confident." 

This specification it will be seen, brother 
Moderator, is in the same spirit, and goes 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



51 



over much of the same ground with the 
former one under this charge. Mr. Graves 
reiterates. I too, must therefore reiterate. 
I invite attention to the following points : 

1. Why does he Bay that I made an 
attack upon men and brethren, without 
precedent ? Without precedent for what ? 
He had said in a previous paper, that it 
was characterised by fury ; that it was 

nd shocking; and several times that 
it was the grossest insult. Did he not seek 
to make the impression that I had so con- 
ducted myself towards these "men and 
brethren'' as to have completely forfeited 
not only their confidence, but even their 

; and that they ought to look upon 
me with aversion, as the traducer of their 
character as men and christians ? 

2. Why does he then designate the men 
by name, upon whom as he says this furious, 
gross and shocking insult was perpetrated, 
in their presence, and in the presence of 
the Convention, as four of the Deacons, and. 
two other members of my own church, if he 
does not wish to bring them into collision 
with me ? Why does he leave his own and 
Mr. Dayton's name out, and place my dea 
cons up as a mark for the "shaft" directed 
against the very persons whose names he 
omitted? 

8. Why does he intimate that I regard 
these four Deacons and two other members of 
my own church, as too ignorant, or to un- 
principled to be trusted with such a work as 
the creation of books for Sunday Schools ? 
Was he desirous that they should respect 
their Pastor? Was it not his purpose to 
bring them into collision with me ? 

4. Why does Mr. Graves dwell upon all 
this foul creation of his own, endeav- 
or to persuade these members of this 
church that it is true, and remind them that 
from any other man BUT ME, AN ACCOUNT OF 
IT would certainly be demanded? W r hy this 
inflammatory appeal to these brethren? Was 
it not to put them at variance with their 
Pastor? And why bring them into collision 
with their Pastor ? What is to be the result 
of a tear between the Pastor, and four Dea- 
cons, and two other leading members of the 
church? What else can result to the church 
but injury, division, and overthrow : Was 
he not laboring with all his might, to 
'cause' among you 'divisions, and offences, 
contrary to the doctrine' of Christ ? 



SPECIFICATION THIRD. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated 
February 20th, 185S, Mr. Graves says : 

'•What a cruel suspicion — aye, what 
B GROSS insult — is offered to the men 
whose names were nominated for that 
Board!" "Here are the names nominated 
for a Board by that committee : — H. G. 
Scovel, A. B. Shankland, A. Nelson, A. 
C Beech, E. F. P. Poole, Wm. Murfree, 
S. Fish." "We affirm that these men are 
above suspicion in the respect intimated. 
They are not the men who can be corrupted by 
bribe or by favor. They are not the men — 
not a man of them — who could be influ- 
enced by any means, to violate the confi- 
dence of the denomination, or to prosti- 
tute any trust confided in them, to promote 
the pecuniary interests of individuals, at 
the expense of the best interests of the 
denomination. No grosser insult could 
have been intimated than to suppose they 
could be used in this way." 

In another place in the same number of 
his paper, Mr. Graves goes on to say : 

"Who are the men nominated for a 
Board, that brother H. is so unwilling to 
purvey theology for his children, or any 
other like them. FOUR OF THEM ARE THE 
most efficient Deacons of the First 
Church : H. G. Scovel, A. B. Shankland, 
A. Nelson, A. C. Beech. They are pious, 
intelligent, energetic, business men. The 
first named brother has, for many years 
been the Superintendent of the Sunday 
School, and all, or nearly all of them, ex- 
perienced teachers in the Sunday School. 
Brother Howell should withdraw his child- 
ren, and advise all other parents to with- 
draw their children from the instruction of 
such men, if they are unsafe purveyors of 
religious instruction to any man's children. 
If they are either unsafe to be trusted, 
wholly incompetent to decide upon what 
should be taught to children in Sunday 
School books, they are even more unsafe 
and incompetent to teach children directly 
in the Sunday School. We again say of 
these men against any man s denial, that 
six better qualified men, either to manage 
the finances of the Union, or to purvey 
theology for any man's children, or to de- 
3ide upon the books suitable for children, 
could not be selected in this city, or any 
city in the South. We would prefer them 



58 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



to any seven of the most learned men in 
the United States known to us, be they J). 
I'.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were trained 
from earliest childhood in Sunday Scdiools, 
and ever since early manhood been teach- 
ers, or Superintendents in Sunday Schools. 
To question their ability, is to offer them the 
GROSSEST in.sult, because it would be to 
deny them the possession of natural capac- 
ity, and common intelligence." 

Bro. Moderator I ask attention, in these 
extracts, to the following points which em- 
body the evidence of Mr. Graves' guilt: 

1. He affirms again and again that I 
have cast upon four of the Deacons, and 
some other members of the church of 
which I am pastor, "a cruel suspicion ;" 
and that I have offered them ''the GROSS- 
EST INSULT." 

2. He affirms that I have intimated that 
these members may be "bribed," and are 
not worthy of "the confidence of the de- 
nomination" 

3. He in substance, declares that I have 
pronounced them wanting in "natural ca- 

But why all this, even had it been true, 
repeated again and again, and pertina- 
ciously urged in the public prints, jeering 
them mean time, with the declaration that 
any other urn i, hut //,-.would certainly be call- 
ed to answer for it? Who does not see that he 
labored earnestly to bring them into col- 
lision with their pastor. But why bring 



them into collision with hi 



He could 



have had no other purpose but to distract, 
and if possible, overthrow, or destroy 
t Baptist Church of which we arc 
all members. 

I need not again state that every one of 
these allegations by Mr. Graves, is 
false. I never attacked these brethren 
at all. I did not in my speech in the Con- 
vention. I did not in my letter to the In- 
dex. I have, however, every reason to be 
assured that in pla 'f as he sub- 

stantially did, at the head of that Board, 
he sought to have their names as a bulwark 
upon which he might stand before the de- 
nomination, and behind which he might 
shelter himself against any attacks made 
upon his own teachings. It seems that for 
the present, at least, he was foiled in these 
purposes. He then in his vengeful wrath 
took these methods of diverting public at- 



tention from the true Issue, and to bring re- 
proach and injury upon me, and upon this 
church. He declares in his paper, and re- 
peats it, week after week, that I had furi- 
ously assaulted these brethren, that I had 
perpetrated upou them a most gross, and 
shocking attack ; that I had offered them 
the grossest insult; that my onset upon 
them was unprecedented in all these re- 
spects ; that I pronounced them too ignor- 
ant, or too unprincipled to be trusted with 
the work of making Sunday School books: 
that I have cast upon them "a cruel sus- 
picion;" that I have intimated that they 
may be " bribed ; " and that they are want- 
ing in "natural capacity, and common in- 
telligence ; " and he calls upon all the thou- 
sands of churches in the South, and South 
West, who never before heard of them, to 
meet, legislate regarding them, and vote 
them incompetent; and Mr. Graves him- 
self, sets up for them, an earnest defence 
against alleged attacks of their Pastor, 
which attacks in reality never existed. The 
man who should in a public newspaper, 
volunteer to defend my xoife and children, 
that I have ever loved, and tenderly cher- 
ished, declaring that I had insulted and 
abused them, and pronouncing them 
"against any man's denial," and especially 
against my denial, superior to any other 
man's wife and children in America, or in 
England, I should at once know that he 
intended, if he possibly could, to render 
me odious in their sight, and to divide, and 
destroy us as a family. And what sort of 
chastisement ought such an intermeddlerto 
receive? In such a work, and no less nefa- 
rious and wicked is Mr. Graves now en- 
gaged. His purpose was un doubted ly, if 
possible, to divide, overthrow, and destroy 
the First Baptist Church in Nashville. 

If, however, any doubts of his guilt ex- 
isted before, the events of last Tuesday 
night swept them all away. After your 
adjournment, and at the midnight hour, he 
called upon his partisans, and aided by cer- 
tain men from abroad, brought here for the 
purpose, actually and in your own place of 
worship, when you had retired, consumma- 
ted the identical division which lie had, 
so long, by the means set forth in the spec- 
if cations now before you, endeavored to to ac- 
complish. By appeals of his own, and of 
some others, he succeeded in leading out of 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



59 



tbis church, on that occasion, some twenty- 
five of your number ! Some few of you 
beheld that scene upon which angels must 
have looked with sorrow. The schism de- 
nounced by the word of God, was boldly 
consternated by J. R. Graves. 

Is he guilty of grossly immoral and un- 
christian conduct, as charged in this count 
of the indictment ? Alas, it is but too true. 
He is guilty. Painful as it is to us all, guid- 
ed by the word of God, we are forced to the 
conclusion that he is guilty. 

Mr. Fuller remarked that it seemed the 
programme of Tuesday night was to be per- 
sisted in, and that no defence on the part 
of Elder Graves is to he made. The case is 
perfectly plain that Elder Graves, is guilty 
as charged, and he moved that the charge 
he sustained, and that the vote of the church 
be now taken upon his motion. 

The charge was then read. 

The Moderator. You have heard the 
charge and the testimony introduced to 
sustain it: All who helieve that the charge 
against Elder Graves has been sustained by 
the testimony, will rise. 

Upon a count it was ascertained that 
there were seventy-nine members standing. 

The Moderator. All who believe that the 
charge has not been sustained by the testi- 
mony, will rise. 

No one rose. 

The Moderator declared that the church 
had decided by a unanimous vote that the 
charge was sustained. 

Dr. Howell moved that a committee be 
appointed whose duty it should be to con- 
fer with those brethren who held a meet- 
ing in this church Tuesday night after the 
adjournment of the regular church meeting, 
in order to ascertain the purpose they have 
in view. 

The motion was adopted. 

Dr. Howell then moved that the Moder- 
ator be constituted chairman of that com- 
mittee, which shall be composed of three, 
and that he appoint two others. 



The motion was adopted, and the Mod- 
erator appointed S. M. Scott and A. Nel- 
son said committee. 

The church meeting then adjourned, 
with prayer by Dr. Howell, to meet Mon- 
day night at 7 o'clock. 



Monday Evening, October 15, 1858. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

The proceedings were opened by read- 
ing a portion of Scripture by the Modera- 
tor, and prayer by Dr. Howell. 

The reading of the minutes was dispensed 
with. 

The Moderator announced that the third 
count in the charge against Elder J. .R 
Graves would now be taken up. 

Mr. Fuller read the count as follows: 

T/u'rdly, in that he has uttered and pub- 
lished in his said paper against R. B. C. 
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry 
foul and atrocious libels. 

Mr. Fuller stated that the proof to sus- 
tain this charge is to be found in various 
numbers of the Tennessee Baptist, which 
he read as follows: 

"What! Brother Howell duped — made 
use of — made a passive instrument by some 
one he had not so much as consulted with, 
to advise and urge in <a steam speech/ a 
Baptist Association tn do something he him- 
self did not understand, or if he did heartily 
disapproved and abhorred! Is it probable? Is 
it even supposable?" "He knew Dayton, 
and Graves did not conceal the fact that they 
expected the Convention would become 
permanent, and furnish Sunday School 
Books, for not a word is said about it 
except in connection with this object. This 
is made the basis of the appeal for a con- 
vention, 'Sunday School Libraries/ " "But 
the constitution originates 'another South- 
ern Baptist Publication Society/ says 
brother Howell. We answered this in the 
Convention to the satisfaction of all present 
we think. We do not think this was 
brother Howell's idea at first, when he call- 
ed the Convention." 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March 6th 



60 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



1858. "What great or good enterprise 
was ever inaugurated without discussion? 
Not one. What great and glorious enter- 
prise but was'sought to be slain at its birth 
by some Herod? Not one." 

"Let brethren remember that no great 
and good work has ever been accomplished 
without strife. And it has often happened 
that the very men, who should, of all others, 
have made peace, are those who stirred up 
the strife. As in our Savior's time, the 
Rabbis stirred up the people fo resist and 
destroy what He proposed, and claimed to 
do it by the will of God. As in the days 
of the Apostles, the Chief Priests and 
Scribes, and great men in Israel, verily 
thought they did God service in opposing 
the disciples. So it has often happened 
since. Our titled and leading men have 
been often found in the rauks of the oppo 
sition to the best and noblest efforts for the 
advancement of the cause of truth. Why 
this is so, we need not now stop to inquire." 

"The Apostles themselves were accused 
of 'turning the world upside down.' And 
their efforts for the cause of truth were 
more than once the occasion of a much 
greater disturbance generally than has 
been raised by our efforts, or brother Day- 
ton, in the cause of the Sunday Schools. 
Let not those who shout 'Great is Diana of 
the Ephesians,' accuse us of raising the 
mob. Who is it that has stirred up this 
strife? Who made the attack? Who has 
Bald the unkind words? Who has attacked 
personal character? Who has published to 
the world that the Board nominated are 
men wholly incompetent to the task propo- 
sed to assign it? Who has suggested base 
aud mercenary motives? Who?" 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13, 
1858. "Nothing occurred during the Con- 
vention so deeply to be deplored as brother 
Howell's remarks on what he said seemed 
to point to the pecuniary private interest 
of individuals. True, he said, he made no 
such charge as that brethren were influ- 
enced by pecuniary considerations, but that 
others would think so, the inference would 
be drawn — he did not draw it, but it would 
be drawn, &c." 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13th, 
1858. "He [A. C. Dayton,] has done too 
much good to be let alone. He is enjoy- 



ing too much of the love, and attracting 
too much of the attention of Baptists not 
to be compelled to suffer the penalty, that 
superiority or great usefulness is ever 
doomed to pay." 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March 6th, 
1858. "The ostensible leader of the Anti- 
Landmark Baptists in this State, while 
brother Howell was still in Virginia, 
"was publishing a magazine in this city 
called the Parlor Visitor. When he could 
not meet by arguments the reasoning of 
those whom he opposed, he did not scruple 
to attempt by dark insinuations to impugn 
their motives and blacken their character." 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 24. February 20, 
1858, "He, [Howell,] doubtless knew that 
such a paragraph as this had been penned 
and published by a member of the Bible 
Board. Surely Bro. H. nor any man can 
think it strnnge that Bro. D. should feel 
sensitive to see such an insinuation repro- 
duced by the President of the Bible 
Board." 

[ When Mr. Fuller came to the extract 
containing the letter from W. H. Holcombe, 

I he remarked : It is a well known principle 
in law, that an editor is responsible for what 

< his correspondents may say, and the courts 

j have so decided.] 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 25, February 27, 
; 1858. Mr. Holcomb says: "I am tempted 
i to say some severe things to brother How- 
ell. For our own brethren to assail each 
. other and some of our time honored ptrinci- 
\ples, is indeed strange and very mortifying 
I to me." 

"It is the province of Dr. H. to teach 
his brethren the doctrines of the Bible, 
surely they will not remain in ignorance 
much longer." 

"If, after all, the whole ground of charge 
, is that brother Graves as editor, and his 
Publishing House is destined to become 
\ more popular than the Southern Publica- 
tion Society at Charleston, should our 
brethren complain? If the '■Tennessee Bap- 
tist' is the most able and popular Baptist 
; paper South, what of that?" 

Tennessee Baptist, No. 29, March 27, 
1858. Mr. Baldwin, says: "As to the 
Sunday School Union, we are in favor of 
its organization, and regard the attacks 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



61 



made upon it by some of our milk and 
water Baptists as an attack on men for their 
Landmark principles more than anything 
else.'' 

Tennessee Baptist. No. 30. April 3. 1858. 
Mr. Hardwick says : '• I am astonished that 
men heretofore noted for piety and christian 
courtesy should treat Baptist as you and 
some of yuur friends have been treated.'" 

•• Let the work of proscription go on. It 
cannot last long." 

•• At no distant day you will hear from 
theui, and others will learn by bitter expe- 
rience that opposition to truth is not always 
profitable." 

D in the West are trying to counter- 
act your influence, and if not, to destroy or 
curtail your business." 

Mr. G rares says : "If the course of some 
brethren injure them it is not our fault. 
We sought to prevent it." 

Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 31, April 10, 
W. H. Rarksdale, " I abominate that 
pusillanimous spirit, which crouches before 
clearly perceived wrongs, and will permit 
innocence to be suspected, and well earned 
reputation traduced merely because the 
name of some popular and influential one 
is in some way connected with the slander- 
ous rumor. Now, sir. at the risk of niv 
'good name,' I will here breast the storm 
in the defence of the slandered Pendleton, 
the traduced Dayton, and the caricatured 
Graves." 

" Did either of them accuse Dr. Howell 
of preaching fat 1 Did either of 

them say that Dr. Howell could not so much 
as read the wcrd religion on account of 
an intervening guinea? Although he would 
not go to a single Association, however im- 
portant, unless the brethren would first 
pledge him pecuniary aid." "Every one 
present, however poor, promised to try to 
attend some two or three of these meetings, 
save one brother, and that brother was Dr. 
Howell, whose guinea seemed quite sucrscs- 
tive ! For if I remember correctly, ho in- 
variably answered, whenever in the affirma- 
tive, by saying, 'Dr. Hoiuell ivill go. if Dr. 
SoweWs expenses are paid? Now when those 
whose salaries were quite insignificant when 
compared to his, and whose expenses were 
equally as great, were willing to go at their 
own expense, for the privilege of sitting 
together with their brethren in ' Heavenly 



places, in Christ Jesus.' and yet Dr. How- 
ell would not so much as go to a single one, 
without prefacing his promise with the con- 
dition of pecuniary aid, I could not, for my 
life, keep his * gourd handle' out of my 
brain. And vet who, until brother Howell 



i and others sought to 'crush out' and choke 
down certain men and their enterprises, 
would have ever thought how beautifully 
his anecdotes all might be illustrated nearer 
home." 

Graves: "Read the article of Elder 
Barksdale. Bro. B. was a member of the 
Committee to draft a constitution — an anti- 
Landmark man — not ultra — and the warm 
\ friend of brother H. He speaks 
what he does know, and testifies of what 
he has seen, and his testimony will have 
great weight." 

paper. I J. J. Martin.) '•' I have 
been surprised, and so have many others, 
at the course taken by certain individuals — 
some of whom are titled and famous for the 
discovery of 'gourd handles' in so furi- 
ously attacking old Land-markers, for the 
war is against men instead of measures. 
_ n my brother, you are in the right, 
and true Baptists will stand up to you." 

Ten:. st, Xo. 32, April 17, 

L858 Junes. ) '• The strange, and I must 
say, unchristian production of Dr. Howell 
has distressed and mortified me deeply. 
"W hat good could he expect to crow out of 
such a production ? All good Baptists will 
be mortified at it. And has it come to this, 
that Dr. Howell is seeking popularity from 
the Pedoes, by striking down his friends 
who arc laboring for the advancement of 
truth." 

(T. H Thurman.) "I have read with 
sorrow of the course pursued by Bro. How- 
ell, and others, relative to the action of the 
Southern Sabbath School Union. I had 
not expected that Elder Howell would have 
occupied a position so suicidal to the inter- 
ests of our churches and children." 

The testimony to sustain the third charge 
having been read, 

The 3Ioderator inquired if there was any 
rebutting testimony to be offered. 

None having been offered, 

The Moderator announced that the case 
! was open for any remarks that may be sub- 
! mitted by the prosecution or defence. 



82 



TIRAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Dr. Howell said : 
Brother Moderator and Brethren : 

It was not my purpose again to have ad- 
dressed you at length, in the progress of 
this trial. It is thought by brethren, how- 
ever, that upon this count, at least, in the 
charge before you, I ought to do so. I am 
sick, sick of these disgraceful details, 
through which J. R. Graves compels you 
to wade. Yet I shrink from no duty. And 
I willingly assume the task, however pain- 
ful, which is necessary to vindicate this be- 
loved church from the reproach and shame, 
Bought to be brought upon it, by the Senior 
editor of the Tennessee Bap>tist. I do it 
for the honor of Christ, for the vindication 
of His truth, and for the defence and pros- 
perity of His cause, and His people. I beg 
you, therefore, of your clemency, to hear 
me patiently. 

The count in the charge now before you 
is as follows : 

"We, the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. It. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral, 
and unchristian conduct, in that he has ut- 
tered, and published in his said paper 
against R. B. C Howell, the pastor of this 
church, sundry foul, and atrocious libels. 

A libel, brother Moderator and brethren, 
and a slander, are very nearly allied to each 
other. A standi r is " a false tale or report, 
maliciously uttered and tending to injure the 
reputation of another by lessening him in the 
esteem of his fellow-citizens." To slander 
is to defame, to injure by maliciously utter- 
ing a false report respecting one; to tarnish 
or impair the reputation of one, by false 
tales maliciously told, or propagated," A 
libel is the same thing written or printed. A 
slander may be a mere verbal utterance. A 
libel, according to Blackstone, " is a de- 
famatory writing." It is "any book, pam- 
phlet, writing, or picture, containing rep- 
resentations maliciously made, or published, 
tending to bring a person into contempt, 
or expose him to public hatred or derision. 
The communication of such defamatory 
writing to a single person, is considered in 
law, a publication. It is immaterial in re- 
spect to the essence of a libel, whether the 
matter of it be true, or false, since ihepro- 



vocation, and not the falsity, is the thing to 
be punished criminally. But in a social ac- 
tion, a libel must appear to be false, as well 
as scandalous." 

Such are the laws of our country. Civil 
government has ever found it necessary to 
guard the people against the foul aspersions 
of the. slanderer, and libeller, by the most 
stringent enactments. The word of God 
on this whole subject, is most explicit. I 
will refer to a few passages as examples of 
the divine teaching : 

Solomon says : Prov. vi, 16-19 : " These 
six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven 
arc an abomination unto him : a proud look, 
a lying tongue, and hands that shed inno- 
cent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked 
imaginations, feet that be swift in running 
to mischief, a false witness that speaketh 
lies, and him that soweth discord among 
brethren." The ninth commandment is 
expressed thus : " thou shalt not bear false 
witness against thy neighbor." Another 
of the laws of God by Moses, is thus brief- 
ly expressed : Exodus xxiii. 1 : "Thou shalt 
not raise a false report." 

In these and like terms the promulgation 
of falsehood, without regard to motive, is 
rebuked. The act itself is sinful. It is 
expressly forbidden, and declared hateful 
to God. If falsehood itself is sinful, how 
much more sinful is libel? — falsehood stated 
with intent to injure — a sinful act prompt- 
ed by a sinful motive. Falsehood is a 
violation of truth and right, libel is a vio- 
lation of truth and right and love. False- 
hood is not necessarily prompted by a sin- 
ful motive, libel is the offspring of baleful 
passions, of hate and revenge. A desire 
to injure is opposed to the spirit of the 
gospel. Had I injured Mr. Graves, still, 
malice and revenge have no s'anction in the 
word of God. But I had not injured him. 
These imputations upon my reputation, 
these libels on my character were unpro- 
voked. He violated the laws of God and 
the laws of man to inflict a wanton injury 
upon me. It is needless to dwell upon the 
moral quality of acts which civil laws do 
not tolerate. If libel is abhorrent to frail 
imperfect man, how must it- appear to the 
eye of Infinite Holiness? "We will now, 
with the laws of man, and the laws of God 
distinctly before us, and referring, as here- 
tofore, to Mr. Graves' paper alone for our 



TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRATES. 



03 



testimony, adduce the following specifica- 
tions in proof of his guilt. 

FIRST SPECIFICATION. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated 
February 20th, 1S5S, speaking of my let- 
ter in the Christian Index, before frequent- 
ly referred to, Mr. Graves says : 

u What ! Brother Howell duped — made 
use of — made a passive instrument by some 
one he had not so much as consulted with, 
to advise and urge in ' a 5 team speech,' a 
Baptist Association to do something he him- 
self did not understand, or if he did heartily 
disapproved and abhorred! Is it probable? Is 
it even supposable ? " '• He knew Dayton, 
and Graves did not conceal the fact that they 
expected the Convention would become 
permanent, and furnish Sunday School 
Books, for not a word is said about it 
except in connection with this object. This 
is made the basis of the appeal for a con- 
vention, 'Sunday School Libraries.' " "But 
the constitution originates ' another South- 
ern Baptist Publication Society,' says broth- 
er Howell. We answered this in the Con- 
vention to the satisfaction of all present we 
think. We do not think this was brother 
Howell's idea at first, when he called the 
Convention." 

I ask the attention of the church to the 
following considerations in connection with 
the above extracts : 

At the Concord Association of last year 
I was made chairman of a committee on 
Surday Schools. I stated to the Associa- 
tion, when appointed, that I could not ac- 
cept it, unless another member of the com- 
mittee would write the report. A report, 
written by a brother, and slightly modified 
by myself, was submitted by me. That re- 
port advised the call of a convention at the 
approaching meeting of the General Asso- 
ciation at Nashville, to take into consider- 
ation the subject of Sunday Schools. 

1. In the above extract, it is asserted 
that X urged the Association to call this 
convention ; and unless I urged the Asso- 
ciation to do something I did not under- 
stand, that I understood what the conven- 
tion was to be, with its objects and de- 
signs; and that, if I did undersrand, I 
approved it, or else I urged upon the Asso- 
ciation an object I disapproved and abhor- 
ed. He thus holds me up before the public 



in a false attitude, misrepresents my views 
and positions, in order to bring me into 
odium or contempt. He presents me in 
the attitude of one who either urges a thing 
he knows nothing about, or favors a thing 
in its incipiency which he afterwards en- 
deavors to crush. This was calculated to 
throw me into contempt, or to expose me 
to odium. It is not necessary that I should 
show that it is false as well as malicious. 
I had in my mind a distinct conception of 
what it was proper for such a convention to 
consider and to propose, but those objects 
were very different from the purposes which 
it was afterwards attempted to carry out 
through it. The statement that I did not 
understand what I advised is false : the al- 
ternative that I approved of the convention 
with the purposes to which they designed 
to apply it, is also false. 

Mr. Graves' proceeding in his endeavor 
to show that I knew the ulterior purposes 
to which they intended to apply the con- 
vention states, 

2. That "Graves and Dayton" did not 
conceal from me the fact that they expect- 
ed the convention would become perma- 
nent, and furnish Sunday school books, and 
thus be moulded into the shape which it- 
was afterwards attempted to give it. 

3. That I knew their expectation or de- 
sign, which they did not conceal. 

4. That it was not my idea at first, when 
the convention was called, that the organi- 
zation of a new Board of Publication would 
originate a new Baptist Publication Society. 

It is impossible for me to dwell upon all 
the allegations of Mr. Graves at length. 
From what has been already stated in this 
connection it will be seen that these state- 
ments are all untrue ; and they were evi- 
dently designed to expose me to public 
hatred and derision. 

SECOND SPECIFICATION. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 20, dated 
March 6th, 1858, Mr. Graves says : 

" What great or good enterprise was 
ever inaugurated without discussion ? Not 
one. What great and glorious enterprise 
but was sought to be slain at its birth by- 
some Herod? Not one." "Let brethren 
remember that no great and good work 
has ever been accomplished without strife. 
And it has often happened that the very 



64 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



bo should of all others have made 
peace, are those who stirred up the strife. 
As in our Saviour's time, the Rabbis 
stirred up the people to resist, and de- 
stroy what he proposed; and claimed to 
do it by the will of God. As in the days 
of the Apostles, the Chief Priests, aud 
Scribes, and preat men in Israel, verily 
thought they did God service in < 

. bo it has often happened since, 
oar titled and leading men have been often 
found in the ranks of the opposition to the 

d noblest efforts fo\ m nt of 

n of truth. Why this is so, we need 

not dow stop to inquire." ' ; The Apostles 

Ives were accused of turning tht 

world ■ And their efforts for 

the cause of truth, were more than once 

. of a much greaf i 

lly, than ha, - 

•r brother Dayton, iu the cause of 

inday Schools. Let not those who 
shout 'Great is Diana of the Ep! 

"Who is it 
that has stirred up this Btrife 'I Who made 
the attack!'' Who has said the unkind 
words? Who has attacked persona] char- 
I ublished to the world 
that the Board nominated are men wholly 
incompetent to the ta.-k proposed to 
it ''. Who fa . base and merce- 

nary motives ? \Y 

1. Since the wicked king of Judca 
sought tu slay the infant .Saviour, and to ac- 
complish his bloody purpose, slew the in- 
fant- of Bethlehem, the name of Herod 
■i a synonym fur unscrupulous ambi- 
tion, heartless cruelty, and detestable base- 
ness. The epitle • - not a man, 
but a monster. When it is applied to any 
one it awakens in the mind the character of 
the monster Herod, and transfers it to the j 
person so designated. Politicians some- 
times, when they desire to brand an oppo- 
nent as unfaithful to his country, call him 
an Arnold. Vituperation reaches no high- 
er, than to designate a cruel man as a Ne- 
ro. And to stigmatize a man as a Herod, I 
is to apply to him every reproachful epi- 
thet which is applicable to that hateful 
character. And this is what Mr. Graves 
here does to me. I am the Herod who 
sought to slay in its birth his "great and 
glorious enterprise." As Herod sought to 
slay at his birth the Saviour of the world, ■ 



whom every Christian loves, and thus in- 
curred the detestation of every christian 
heart, so I with similar opposition and simi- 
lar baseness, sought to slay iu its birth the 
organisation of a Board in this city for pub- 
lishing Sunday School books. A man 
would hesitate to apply such an epithet to 
his worst enemy, much less to a christian 
brother. It is needless to dwell upon the 
christian character of such '-railing accu- 
sations." It is also unnecessary that I 
should assert that it is unmerited by me — 
that in my opposition to that enterprise I 
was influenced by no unworthy motive, 
that I was impelled by uo personal consid- 
erations, of ambition for myself or hostili- 
ty to 31r. Graves, but was actuated only by 
a desire which has directed all the actions 
of my life, to advance the interests of 
the Redeemer's kingdom. 

2. Mr. Graves asserts that I, the very 
man, who should have made peace, stirred 
up the strife. All that I had done in this 
matter is comprised in a short speech in 
the Sunday School Convention, and in tho 
letter to the Christian Index, which you 
heard read last night. In neither of these 
did I do anything to stir up strife, unless 
candid and conscientious dissent from the 
views of Mr. Graves necessarily induces 
strife on his part. This declaration, how- 
ever, is iu entire harmony with his policy, 
which is constant aggression; and when- 
ever his aggressive acts are opposed, to 
raise the cry of persecution. I can, with 
a clear conscience, say to Mr. Graves as 
did the Prophet of Israel: "I have not 
troubled Israel, but thou and thy house." 

3. That as iu the Saviour's time the Rab- 
bis stirred up the people to resist and des- 
troy what he proposed, and claimed to do 
it by the will of God, so I have stirred 
up the people to resist and destroy what 
Mr. Graves proposed, and claimed to do it 
by the will of God. The Rabbis upon 
whom our Saviour denounced his woes, and 
who hypocritically opposed all his designs, 
are by the christian world viewed as the 
types of all hypocritical, selfish, and ma- 
levolent opposition to rightousness. To 
compare me to them can be done only 
with a view to transfer to me the odium 
which all time has impressed on the char- 
acter of a Jewish Rabbi. Of a like nature 
is his next allegation. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



65 



4. That as in the days of the Apostles with his cries and railing; all the while en- 
the Chief Priests and Scribes and great jdeavoriug to make his readers believe that 
men in Israel opposed the disciples, so I. the noise was not his own. He eharges 
with other titled men, have opposed Mr. me and others with raising the dust caused 
Graves and his allies in their noblest ef- ' by the furious driving of his own chariot. 
r the advancement of truth. 7. That I attacked his personal character 

•"'. That as the Apostles were accused of aud thus stirred up all this strife, 
turuiug the world upside down, and oppo- 8. That I suggested base and nierce- 
sition to their efforts brad disturbances, so nary motives and this excited contention. 
the present disturbance has been bred by I In regard to the last two allegati 
similar opposition by myself aud others to desire to call the attention of the church 
Mr. Grave;. to a statement of Rev. Mr. Pendleton, then 

6. That I and others, not Mr. Graves, his assistant, now his associate editor, mid 
have raised the mob, of which he speaks, his special friend and advocate. Iu the 
by crying, "Great is Diana of the Ephesi- Tennessee Baptist, February 13th, 1858, 
ana," that is. defending the Southern Bap- he says: 

tist Publication Society, and resisting the "Nothing occurred during the Conven- 
appointmeut of another Publication Board tion, so deeply to be deplored as brother 
ia this city to supercede it. Howell's remarks on what he said seemed 

The motives of Mr. Graves in the advo- to point to the pecuniary private interests 
eacy aud prosecution of this enterprise of individuals. True, he said he made no 
have not bee/i questioned by me. But the such charge as that brethren were influ- 
design which he promoted — the appoint- enced by pecuniary considerations, but that 
meat of another Board of Publication — I others would think so The inference 
honestly opposed because I thought it cal- would be drawn. He did not draw it, but 
eulated to distract the Baptist Churches of it would be drawn." 

the South. Its deplorable influence in The writer of this paragraph will not be 
this respect has been seen. It seemed to suspected of mitigating the tendency of my 
me that a lover of the cause of Christ, remarks. His evident design is to place 
should not promote division, when the them in a strong li-ht. so as to render them 
source of contention was not a religious as "deeply to be 'deplored" as possible, 
principle, but only a question, whether Does he say that I made anv personal impu- 
Sabbath School Books should be published , tations upon the character of Mr. Graves, 
here or in Charleston. I knew that many or anv one e \ SQ f Xo, but that I positively 
brethren were opposed to thd inauguration disclaimed all intention to make any such 
of a new Publication Society, hence it imputation. These two fast allegations made 
would tend to retard the advance of Sab- to injure me in public estimation are like 
bath Schools, I did not think that auother t he others, utteriv groundless. What was 
.- was needed, as the one already in the object of Mr. Graves in ail these rail- 
existence was sufficiently able to meet all [ n2 accusations against me ? Why does he 
our wauts in this respect. Hence. I . charge me with being a Herod— with act- 
thought the enterprise had better be drop- j ng \{^ e t he Rabbis— with pursuing the 
is pressing it would only lead to need- , same euUrse as the chief Priests and Scribes 
less contention between its advocates and __ w i t h stirring up all this strife-with raising 
the friends of the Southern Baptist Publi- a m0D by eryine with others great is Diana 
cation Society. But in advocating this • c ,f the Ephesians— with opposing the best 
opinion. I excited bo mob, I roused no and noblest plans for the advancement of 
contention. 1 calmly took a position, truth— with attacking his personal charac- 
whieh, in its results, w >uld tend to harmo- ter — vrith imputing to him base and mer- 
ny and peace. The falsity of these ehatges, een ary unlives?! They are false allega- 
their injustice to me n ust be > Every t i on s. evidently maliciously made and pub- 

one not totally blinded bv prejudice must Lished, with a design to my injury. They 
see that all this contention is the result of undoubtedly tend to bring me into con- 
Mr. Graves' own eourse Ind€ 1 the con- tempt and expose me to public hatred and 
tendon was all his own Jffe filled the land reproach. They are therefore libels, pun- 
5 



c,c, 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



ishable by the laws of men, and hateful in 
the sight of God. This is not merely rail- 
ing against me, but it is RAILING the allega- 
tions of u-hich, are falsehoods, and falsehoods 
MALICIOUSLY PUBLISHED. If the word of 

God denounces A railer, howniuch more 



THIRD SPECIFICATION. 

In the Tennessee Baptist. No. 23, dated 
February 13th, 1858, speaking of me, and 
others, Mr. Graves says : 

" lie [Mr. Dayton] has done too much 
good to be let alone. He is enjoying too 
much of the love, and attracting too much 
of the attention of Baptists, not to be 
compelled to suffer the penalty that supe- 
riority, or great usefulness is ever doomed 
to pay." 

And in the Tennessee Baptist of March 
6th, 1858, No. 26, he says : 

" The ostensible leader of the anti-Land- 
mark Baptists in this State, while brother 
Howell was still in Virginia," " was pub- 
lishing a magazine in this city, called the 
Parlor Vutor. When he could not meet 
by arguments the reasoning of those whom 
he opposed, he did not scruple to attempt 
by dark insinuations, to impugn their mo- 
tives, and blacken their character." 

And in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, 
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves says : 

" He [Howell] doubtless knew that such 
a paragraph as this had been penned and 
published, by ' A Member of the Bible 
Board." Surely brother H. nor any man, 
can think it strange that brother D. should 
feel sensitive to sec such an insinuation, 
reproduced by the President of the Bible 
Board." 

Before calling attention to several libels 
in these extracts, I will remark that by 
•• A Member of the Bible Board," Mr. 
Graves has reference to an article publish- 
ed in the newspapers with that signature. 
"Who the writer of that article is, as I 
have before said, I do not know. Dr. 
Jones, the late editor of the Parlor- Visit- 
or, assures me he did not write it; and 
up to this hour I have never seen the 
article to which he refers in the Parlor 
Visitor. 

1. Mr. Graves in this specification avers 
that I persecute Mr. Dayton, because he 
[Mr. Dayton] does so much good. 



2. That I hate Mr. Dayton, because he 
[Mr. Dayton] enjoys so much of the loye 
of the Baptists. 

3. That I compel Mr. Dayton to suffer, 
because of his [Mr. Dayton's] superiority, 
and great usefulness. 

4. That I, as Dr. Jones, is alleged to do, 
do not hesitate to impugn Mr. Dayton's 
motive*, and blacken his character. 

5. That I do this, reproducing Dr. Jones 7 
alleged disparagement, in my capacity of 
President of the Bible Board. 

What passion in the human breast is so 
despicable as envy '( What so excites the 
contempt of. mankind as its display ? But 
when, from a simple emotion, it becomes an 
actuating impulse, urging forward to pull 
down and destroy its object, contempt is 
changed to abhorrence. And this is the 
base, vile, despicable passion, which Mr. 
Graves here attributes to me, and assigns 
as the motive for my alleged imputations on 
Elder Dayton. Had this base feeling ever 
rankled in my bosom, self-loathing would 
be too intense for words, and I should be 
justly exposed to the abhorrence and con- 
tempt of all good men, which the editor of 
the Tennessee Baptist has thus endeavored 
to excite against me. However good or 
great the author of Theodosia may be, it 
has never struck me that I had cause to 
envy his worth, his greatne?s, or his popu- 
larity. I have felt that the favor of my 
brethren has been bestowed on me in a 
measure, at least equal to my* merits, and a 
brother deserving and enjoying the same 
approval has ever been to me the source of 
unfeigned pleasure. But not content with 
misrepresenting my actions and putting a 
false gloss upon my expressions, the edit- 
or of the Tennessee Baptist must attribute 
to me the basest motive. He charges me 
with having assailed Elder Dayton which 
is not true, and then falsely attributes this 
attack falsely charged, to the base, unwor- 
thy motive of envy. 

Is it to be wondered at that noble 
hearted brethren, loathing all that is base 
and vile, and believing these representa- 
tions to be true, should be prejudiced and 
excited against me? Such was evidently 
the design of 3If. Graves, in publishing 
against me these " foul and atrocious libels." 

FOURTH SPECIFICATION. 

Mr. Graves having now succeeded in ma- 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



kins an impression on the minds of probably 
not a few of his readers against me, by a 
parte and false statements, in his paper, not 
a few write articles in which they reflect 
the views derived from him. Having 
doubtless innocently, in many instances, re- 
ceived false impressions from the repre- 
sentations in his sheet, these impressions 
are reproduced in their communications. 
Being based upon falsifications, and mis- 
representations, these reflected views, are, 
from their very nature as reproductions nec- 
essarily untrue. Of the writers of these let- 
ters I will be permitted to say a word or 
two. Most of them I know personally, 
and with all of them up to the appearing 
of their articles io the Tennessee Baptist. 
I supposed my relations to be of the most 
cordial and affectionate character. I am 
sure I always loved them sincerely. Nor 
am I conscious of ever having inflicted in- 
jury on any of them. That they should 
have suffered themselves thus to be misled is 
deeply painful. I know of no cause why 
they should pursue me in this manner. 

Mr. Graves has labored to produce these 
false impressions regarding me upon the 
minds of his readers, and he now endeav- 
ors to deepen them by publishing these re- 
flections of his own libellous allegations. 

Mr. Graves knows that he is legally and 
morally responsible for the publication of 
these injurious statements. A few years 
ago he was heavily mulcted in damages for a 
defamatory article of a correspondent, which 
was not endorsed by him. These articles 
are all published with his approval, and 
several of them with his special endorse- 
ment. And giving them thus to the public 
he is morally and legally responsible for the 
injury thus inflicted on me. Indeed the 
whole responsibility is mainly his own, 
since these articles,, in some instances per- 
haps were not intended for the public eye, 
and therefore were not directly intended by 
the writers to injure me. Such are, so far 
as the correspondents are concerned, sim- 
ply false statements in regard to me. And 
even in this, they are honest, believing them 
to be true, in that they have been deceived 
by the false statements of Mr. Graves. But 
the editor of the Tennessee Baptist seizes 
upon them as means for the accomplish- 
ment of his purpose, and heralds them to 
the world, in order to deepen and widen 



the injury, he was attempting to inflict 
upon me. He thus makes the statements 
his own, and the malicious intention, with 
which they are heralded over the land, is 
all his own. It :'s evident that he is 
responsible for thus endeavoring to poi- 
son the public mind, by presenting these 
statements of his correspondents. 

FOURTH SPECIFICATION. 

Rev. Wm. H. Holcombe of Mississippi, 
writes in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 25, 
dated February 27th 1858, as follows : 

"I am tempted to say some severe things," 
[to brother Howell] ''For our own breth- 
ren to assail each other, and some of our 
principles, is indeed strange, 
and very mortifying to me." "It is the' 
proviuce of Dr. H. to teach his brethren 
the doctrines of the Bible. Surely they 
will not remain in ignorance much longer." 
"If after all, the whole ground of charge 
is, that brother Graves, as editor, and his 
Publishing House, is destined to become 
more popular than the Southern Publica- 
tion Society at Charleston, should our breth- 
ren complain? If the Tennessee Baptist is 
the most able, and popular Baptist paper 
South, what of that ?" Upon this letter 
3Ir. Graves comments thus : " Will his 
[Mr. Holcombe's] voice be heard now? 
Will brother Ilouell" regard it? 

In the Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 29, March. 
27th, 1853, a writer spoken of as a Mr. Bald- 
win, and who dates his communication at 
Kingsport, Tennessee, speaks thus: "As 
to the Sunday School Union we are in favor 
of its organization, and regard the attacks 
made upon it, by some of our milk-and- 
water Baptists, as an attack on men for their 
Landmark principles." 

Mr. Graves, in the Tennessee Baptist,. 
Xo. 30, dated April 30th, 1858, publishes 
a letter from J. B. Hardwick, Eiceville,. 
Virginia, a young man that I greatly love, 
and that I suppose to be talented, modest 
and pious, having known him for several 
years, in which he refers to me thus : " I 
am astonished that men heretofore noted 
for piety, and christian courtesy, should 
treat Baptists as you and some of our friends- 
have been treated." ' : Let the work of 
proscription go on. It cannot last long." 
•'•' At no distant day you will hear from them 
[the masses] and others will learn by bitter 



68 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



experience, that opposition to truth is not 
always profitable." " Men in the "West, 
are trying to counteract your influence, and 
if not to destroy or curtail your business.'' 
Upon the letter from which these extracts 
are made, Mr. Graves says : " If the course 
of some brethren injure them, it is not our 
fault. We sought to prevent it. - ' 



The Commentary with which Mr. Graves 
accompanies this production, is as follows: 

"Read the article of Elder Barksdale." 
"Bro. B. was a member of the committee 
to draft a Constitution; an Anti-Landmark 
man, not ultra, and the warm personal 
friend of brother H. He speaks what he 
does know, and testifies of what he has 



In the Tennessee' Baptist, No. 31, April j seen, and his testimony will have great 
10th, 1858, Rev. Wm. H. Barksdale, a | weight." 

young man of Helena, Arkansas, in whom : Rev. J. J. Martin, of Wilson county, 
I had taken much interest, and supposed ' Tennessee, says in the Tennessee Baptist., 
to understand what is due to the amenities No. 81, dated April 10th, 1858: 
of life, writes as follows: "I have been surprised, and so have ma- 

"I abominate that pusillanimous spirit ny others, at the course taken by certain 
which crouches before clearly perceived individuals, some of whom are titled, and 
wrongs, and will permit innocence to be ! famous for the discovery of gourd handles, 
suspected, and well earned reputation tra- in so furiously attacking Old Landmarkers; 
duced, merely because the name of some for the war is against men, instead of meas- 
popul.ir and influential one, is in someway ures. But go on my brother, [Graves,] 
connected with the slanderous rumor. Now you are in the right, and true Baptists will 
sir, at the risk of 'my good name,' I will stand up to you." 

here breast the storm in the defence of the ' In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 32, April 
slandered Pendleton, the traduced Dayton, 17th, 1858, a Mr. Jones, of Campbell 
and the caricatured Graves." "Did either county, Virginia, of whom I know noth- 
of them accuse Dr. Howell of preaching I ing, says: 

for money? Did either of them say that Dr. ''The strange, and I must say unchristian 
Howell could not so much as read the word production of Dr. Howell, has distressed, 
religion on account of an int< a i. and mortified me deeply. What good could 

although he would not go to a single Asso- he expect to grow out of such a production? 
ciation, however important, unless the All good Baptists will be mortified at it. 
brethren would first pledge him peeuni- And has it come to this, that Dr. Howell 
ary aid." Every one present, however is seeking popularity from the Pedoes, by 
pour, promised to try to attend some two or striking down his friends, who are laboring 
three of these meetings, save one brother, for the advancement of truth?" 
and that brother was Dr. Howell, whose In the same paper, a Mr. T. H. Thur- 
guinea seemed quite suggestive. For if I man, unknown to me, who writes from 
remember correctly, he invariably answer- Texas, says: 

ed, Dr. Howell will g<\ if Dr. HowdTs ex- ' "I have read with sorrow of the course 
penses $m paid.' Now when those, whose pursued by brother Howell, and others, re- 
salaries were quite insignificant compared Intive to the action of the Southern Sabbath 
to his, and whose expenses were equally as School Union. I had not expected that 
great, were willing to go at their own ex- ! Elder Howell would have occupied a posi- 



pense, for the privilege of sitting together 
with their brethren in Heavenly places in 
Christ Jesus/ and yet Dr. Howell would 
not so much as go to a single one, without 
prefacing his promise with the condition of 
pecuniary aid, I could not, for my life, 
keep his 'gourd handle' out of my brain. 
And yet who, until brother Howell, and 
others, sought to crush out,' and choke 
down certain men, and their enterprise, 
would have ever thought how beautifully 
his anecdotes all might be illustrated nearer 
home." 



Hon so suicidal to the interests of our churches 
and children" 

The extracts here submitted embrace a 
few only of the disparaging communications, 
which Mr. Graves has elicited from his cor- 
respondents, and published, with a view to 
ray injury. Most of these correspondents 
were undoubtedly deceived by his exparte 
and outrageous representations. Otherwise 
I do not think they could have writen as we 
have seen they have. Some of them, as I 
have heard, have written to Mr. Graves, 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



withdrawing their statements, but he has re- 
fused to publish any such withdrawals. I 
the more lament therefore their appearance 
here in this relation; but you could not avoid 
it. Mr. Graves has dragged them before 
the world, and subjected them to the conse- 
quences of his act. He has betrayed them in- 
to false and libelous statements, which he has 
not only not corrected, but has, as we have 
seen, commended to his readers as true in 
themselves and important in all their bear- 
ings. The position of these correspondents 
is a painful one, to themselves, and to me. 
Betrayed into false and injurious allegations 
by the misrepresentations of Mr. Graves 
which induced them to believe them true. I 
desire to distinguish between the libels and 
the persons who, under mistaken impressions 
produced them. This, however, does not 
apply to Mr. Graves. He excited these 
false impressions in the minds of his rea- 
ders; he thus induces them to make false 
and injurious statements, and then malicious- 
ly heralds the libels to the public. I pro- 
ceed to point out some of these gross libels 
which Mr. Graves has published against me: 

Mr. Holcombe alleges: 

1 . That I have assailed time honored prin- 
ciples of the Baptists in my opposition to the 
proposed Board 

2. That I have assailed the Tennessee 
Baptist, and that too, because it is the most 
able and popular Baptist paper in the South. 

3. That I have assailed Mr. Graves' pub- 
lishing house because it is destined to be- 
come more popular than the Southern Bap- 
tist Publication Society at Charleston. 

I need not declare before you, brother 
Moderator , that in my course "I have as- 
sailed no time honored principle of the Bap- 
tists." The statement is merely a reproduc- 
tion of intimations of the Tennessee Bap- 
tist. Mr. Graves was aware at the time he 
published this libel against me, that it was 
false. But he knew, that with many of his 
readers, the truth of an injurious statement 
would never be investigated, and that false- 
hood would accomplish his injurious purpose 
better than truth. If the impression could 
be made, that I was assailing time honored 
principles of Baptists, he knew that odium 
would be heaped upon me, without inquiry 
in regard to its justice. 

That I have assailed the paper and the 



Publishing House of Mr. Graves is also un- 
true. I have not been the assailant but the 
assailed. But here Mr. Graves publishes to 
the world this injurious statement, which he 
knew had no foundation in fact, but was on- 
ly a reproduction of his own false allega- 
tions: and also publishes to the world that I 
was actuated to this alleged assault by that 
base motive, envy of their popularity and in- 
fluence. Why does Mr. Graves publish 
these false and injurious statements? He 
could have no motive, but to destroy my rep- 
utation, and ruin my character in the minds 
of his readers. This publication of Mr. 
Graves is an atrocious libel on my charac- 
ter. 

Mr. Baldwin alleges : 

1. That I am a milk-and-water Baptist. 

2. That my efforts to prevent the organi- 
zation of a new publication Board to be lo- 
cated in this city, was an attack on men for 
their Landmark principles. 

The first of these allegations is unworthy 
of notice. My labors for nearly forty years 
to advance Baptist principles speak for me. 
That my opposition to the proposed Board 
| in this city was an attack on men has al- 
j ready been shown to be false. This is mere- 
, lv a reproduction of Mr. Graves' former 
statements which have been already an- 
swered. 

These allegations, however, answered 
: well Mr. Graves' purpose and were publish- 
ed by him to produce injury to me. 

Mr, Haedwick alleges: 

1. That in resisting the organization of 
that Board I proscribed Mr. Graves. 

2. That in said resistance I opposed the 
truth. 

3. That my object was to counteract and 
! destroy Mr. Graves' influence. 

4. That I seek to destroy or curtail Mr. 
j Graves' business. 

5. That I have, in this affair, departed 
from piety and courtesy. 

This is all the echo of Mr. Graves' un- 
: founded declarations. The writer of this com 
) munication was evidently deceived by the 
assertions of the Tennessee Baptist. But 
this does not mitigate the character of Mr. 
Graves' conduct in parading these state- 
ments before the public, with intention to in- 
jure me. Why did Mr. Graves publish to 
the world that I proscibed him ; that I was 



70 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



opposing the truth; that my design was to 
counteract and destroy his influence ; to de- 
stroy or curtail his business ; and that my 
course was inconsistent with piety and cour- 
tesy ; but because such publications would 
necessarily tend to injure me and destroy my 
character among his readers? It is unneces- 
sary to stop here to prove that these allega- 
tions are false. It is proved by the state- 
ments in my speech on the last night, which 
it isnot necessary to reproduce. 

Mr. Barksdale alleges : 

1. That I wronged Mr. Graves, cast sus- 
picion upon his innocence, and traduced his 
well earned reputation. 

This assertion is based upon my remarks 
in the Sunday School Convention, and has 
been proved by the testimony of Mr. Pen 
dleton to be false. The object of my re- 
marks which have been so wrested from ! 
their purpose, was to endeavor to induce ! 
Mr. Graves not to press the question of the 
Board, lest interested motives might be im- 
puted to him. This was said in the kindest 
feeling. It had nothing of the nature of a 
taunt. All such intention was earnestly 
disclaimed. 

2. That relyuig upon my reputation to 
sustain me, I have slandered Pendleton, tra- 
duced Dayton and caricatured Graves. 

Nothing in regard to Mr. Pendleton has 
been published by me. The falsity of the 
other allegations has already been sufficient- 
ly demonstrated. 

3. That I am a mercenary man, led in 
what I do by pecuniary considerations. 

4. That my purpose is to "choke down" 
and "crush out" Messrs. Graves, Pendleton 
and Dayton. 

Passing the third allegation, which is un- 
worthy of notice, I remark of the fourth 
that it becomes well its association with the 
other, from its recklessness, and its appeal to 
partisan prejudice. That Mr. Graves pub- 
lished with commendation these libels, is 
proof of his relentless determination to de- 
stroy me as far as it lay in his power. 

Mr. Martin alleges : 

1. That my opposition to the proposed 
Publication Board was a furious attack up- 
on old Landmarkers. 

2. Tiiat it is a war against men and not 
measures. 



The falsity of these allegations is appa- 
rent from statements and arguments already 
adduced. I do not notice the sneer which 
his communication contains. 

3. That I am not a true Baptist. 

I pass that also as unworthy of notice, 
since I am in this respect not unknown to 
my brethren. 

Mr. Jones alleges : 

1. That my letter to the Index was un- 
christian. The church, brother Moderator, 
heard that letter read last night, and you 
saw how groundless are the accusations 
based on it. 

2. That I am seeking popularity with 
Pedo-Baptists, by striking down my friends. 

That I was laboring to strike down any 
one, has already been shown to be false. 
The other allegation which Mr. Graves 
publishes to the world, does not merit no- 
tice by me. 

Mr. TnrRMAN alleges, 

That my opposition to the proposed Board 
is suicidal, [I suppose he means destructive] 
to our churches and children. 

Such are the publications, brother Mode- 
rator and brethren, by which Mr. Graves 
has sought to destroy my character. They 
are false. They all tend, without doubt, 
to bring me into contempt, and to expose 
me to public hatred and derision. That 
they were published with that design, you 
cannot for one moment doubt. They are 
therefore libels. For them all, Mr. Graves 
is, as we have seen, fully as responsible, 
legally and morally, as if he had written 
them himself. He eagerly gathered them 
up, and as I happen to know, in some in- 
stances at least, published them without 
the consent of the writers. He delibrately 
selected and printed them with malicious 
intent to do me injury. And how well are 
they calculated to effect his object. With 
what am I falsely charged in thes« libels, 
so eagerly published by Mr. Graves. The 
allegations are not trivial. I am falsely 
charged as assailing time honored princi- 
ples of Baptists; opposing the truth; pros- 
cribing Mr. Graves; attempting to coun- 
teract and destroy his influence; to destroy 
or curtail his business; as casting suspicion 
upon him; as traducing his reputation; 
as slandering traducing and caricaturing 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



71 



Messrs. Pendleton, Dayton and Graves; j Graves professes to be a Christian, and 
as desiring to '-choke them down" and more, a minister of the pure and holy gos- 
••crush them out;" as, actuated by envy, j pel of our Lord Jesus Christ. How much 
assailing the Tennessee Baptist, and South- ; more revolting are they therefore, coming 

ra Publishing House; as furiously as they do, from a man making such 
attacking men for their Landmark princi- ; pretensions! Nor is this all. These atroci- 

as maintaining a position suicidal to ties, for which the laws of our land would, 
our churches and children; as seeking were we to appeal to them, punish him so 
popularity with Pedoes. by striking down severely, are perpetrated by him, a professed 
my friends; as being a milk-and-water Bap- Christian, with the vows upon him of a min- 
tist; as being a mercenary man actuated j ister of the meek and lowly Jesus, and pro- 
by pecuniary considerations. Such are ' fessing to govern himself by the Word of God, 
some of the libels, by publishing which, not against an enemy, not against a stranger, 
Mr. Graves has labored sedulously for i but against a member of his own Church, 
months to destroy me. And yet you heard whose peace, union, and honor, he has 
him say that he had never had unkind feel- solemnly covenanted to seek by every 
ings towards mc; that he had never desired means in his power. Nor is this alL 
to injure me. What! Were all these pub- He has committed these heinous offences 
lications made in regaid to a brother he '■ against his own pastor, whom, as previously 
loved? Did he entertain towards me the remarked, he had before Jesus Christ, and by 
love required by the Gospel, when he was his commandment, and in the presence of his 
thus laboring for my destruction? Were Church, sacredly pledged himself to love; 
these publications prompted by the eharity and honor his pastor, who received, and 
which thinketh no evil!" Did the Spirit of kindly stood by him, when a stranger, and 
Christ influence him thus to violate the 



commauds of the Savior!' 

If these allegations were true, still Mr. 
Graves would be convicted of railing 
against his brother. If they had not been 
maliciously published, with intent to ruin 
me. still he would be convicted of a crime, 
which the Apostle declares to be a sin 



friendless ; who in his poverty and obscurity 
firmly sustained him ; who brought him for- 
ward to public attention and respctability ; 
who up to this hour has committed no of- 
fence against him; and who for the advance- 
ment of the cause of Christ, aided by other 
brethren, [placed in his hands those very en- 
gines which he has now turned against him and 



against Christ. But thev are false; but agaimst you, and by the aid of which he so 
they are maliciously published; and what is unscrupulously seeks to defame, bring him 
the" intensity of Mr. Graves' moral euilt? int0 contempt, expose him to public hatred 
Take these libels all together, everv one arid derision, and thus to destroy him. How 
of which is dearly deduced from extracts deep, therefore, how revolting the guilt of 
taken from his paper — and a copy of each ^ r - Graves ! 

one quoted now lies before you, that you I shall not address you at length, brethren, 
rnav, by an examination for yourselves, see upon the remaining counts under this charge, 
that the quotations are all authentic, and ' I beg therefore your attention for a few mo- 
fairly made — and what shall we say of the | ments longer, that I may give a more full ex- 
moral attitude of Mr. Graves, as a member of pression to the feelings of my heart on this 
this Church? These libels— four under the occasion. God knows that if all the afflic- 
first specification, eight under the second tions of my life were put together, they 
specification, five under the third specifica- ' would not amount to a tenth part of the suc- 
tion, and twenty under the fourth speehiea- fering which this trial and the events con- 
tion; in a?l about thirty-eight — would he nected with it, have cost me. I feel, howev. 
most revolting, committed under any cireum- . er that these sufferings, are for Christ, his 
stances, even by a man who makes no pre- cause and his people. Therefore "Xone of 
tensions to religion- Ordinary honesty, even , these things move me; neither count I my 
among the low and degraded, would life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my 
seem to be sufficient, even were there no : course with joy, and the ministry which I have 



fear of punishment, to deter a sane man from 
perpetrating such crimes as these, But Mr. 



received to testify the gospel of the grace of 
God." If the charge before you is sustained 



72 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



by the specifications and proofs under the 
several counts already presented, or any por- 
tion of them, to say nothing of those yet to 
come, nor of the outrageous, and schismatical 
proceedings of Tuesday night last, then a 
most solemn duty rests upon you. The ques- 
tion now before you is, not whether you shall 
expel Mr. Graves from your membership, 
but is he guilty? That is what you have at 
present to determine. He occupies, it is ad- 
mitted, but in a very peculiar sense, a high 
position before the churches, as an editor, and 
a preacher of talents. But this fact, while 
it makes your prompt and impartial action 
more difficult, renders it still more imperative. 
" He should be clean who bears the vessels 
of the Lord." What have you seen for 
years past, in the spirit, or language of Mr. 
Graves, bearing any of the lineaments of the 
meek, the lowly, the loving Jesus f The 
Word of God says : — " The servant of the 
Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all 
men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness in- 
structing them that oppose themselves." But 
Mr. Graves is frenzied, striking at every one 
who does not bow down to him, and vitu- 
perating all who he imagines come in his 
way. 

Such has been his conduct for years past. 
Brethren in every quarter of the land have 
felt his blows. Not a few of them, as Dun- 
can of Louisiana, Crane of Mississippi, Tus- 
tin of South Carolina, Coleman of Arkansas, 
Everts of Kentucky, and Dawson of Georgia 
have appealed to you for protection against 
his defamato)y attacks. You could no lon- 
ger be deaf to these calls from every quarter. 
While giving him impunity you are consid- 
ered as endorsing his character, and in pub- 
lic estimation, are participes criminis in his 
evil deeds. 

The course of Mr. Graves towards me, is 
but a continuation of his previous conduct 
towards others, and with as little provocation. 
At your earnest and repeated solicitations I 
returned to your pastorship, which has now 
continued, first and last, more than seventeen 
years. You know me intimately and well; 
more intimately and better than do any other 
people upon earth. I returned not to battle 
against Christians of any denomination, and 
especially not to battle against Christians of 
my own denomination. I came under a 
strong sense of duty, to preach to you the 
gospel of Christ, to seek, with the blessing 



of God, to harmonize our people, to urge for- 
ward the cause of truth and salvation in this 
part of our beloved country, and especially 
to build up and strengthen, with what abili- 
ty I possess, this little Church, over which I 
have anxiously watched, and for which I 
have prayed so many years, and which has 
always been so dear to my heart. From this 
purpose I have never for a moment departed. 
I have assailed no one : I have sought, pray- 
fully sought, the benefit of all, and of all 
alike. W T hy then am I, and are you, and 
our friends elsewhere, assailed by Mr. Graves, 
in the manner which has been exposed? 
Why are we now, week after week, falsified, 
slandered, ridiculed, and belittled by him, 
and by both his associate editors ? Is this 
the "howl" which it was prophecied would 
come up, and which would make you, and 
me, and tfiis whole Church " think the world 
was coming to an end?" For more than six 
months we did not notice Mr. Graves' attacks 
in any way. To this day neither you nor 
I have published one word of response. 
This impunity has been abused by him. 
It has rendered him but the more bold 
and reckless. You have now at last called 
him, and properly, to auswer at your bar. 
As a member of this Church, having the same 
rights with every other, and only the same 
fights, and as your pastor, entitled until it is 
forfeited, to the respect due the pastoral of- 
fice, I cheerfully, gladly, throw myself upon 
your enlightened justice. If in your opinion, 

and others implicated, have deserved the 
shame attempted to be heaped upon us, we 
will not appeal from your decision It is 
your duty to speak truly, and to sustain the 
right, no matter who suffers. Hitherto God 
has supported me in the ministry, without 
stain or reproach. I do not, however, ask 
you to spare me. I never will. I will not ac- 
cept from you forbearance. I ask only for even- 
handed justice. If I am guilty, as Mr. Graves 
affirms, strike me down. I occupy a position 
of which I am unworthy. I asked of Mr. 
Graves, in all my efforts to settle this matter, 
as to myself, privately, nothing towards me 
which I did not voluntarily offer to do my- 
self towards him. I now ask you to do no- 
thing in regard to him, which 1 would not 
have you do with regard to me in like cir- 
cumstances. 

But Mr. Graves is guilty, indubitably 
guilty, as charged in every one of these 



TRIAL OF REV J. R. GRAVES. 



73 



This, liis warmest admirers, when 
their "sober second thoughts" come to bear 
rule, will be obliged to admit. If you find him 
guilty you must pronounce him guilty. You 
cannot avoid this verdict. He will then stand 
before you, and before all others, who ac- 
knowledge the sovereignty of Baptist Church- 
es, in the exercise of discipline, as convicted 
of the offences charged. You will after- 
wards be called upon to decide what the 
Word of God requires you to do with him. 
If his offences are really what they are rep- 
i in this charge, and clearly proved 
to be in the specifications under the several 
counts bek-re you, you owe it to him; you 
owe it to vourselves: vou owe it to our breth- 
ren, and churches throughout the land: you 
owe it to the cause of truth, and salvation; 
vou owe it as a duty to Jesus Christ, to 
place upon him the seal of your condemna- 
tion. But he refuses to hear you '. He at 
fectsto withdraw; lie denounce? your au- 
thority and jurisdiction ! The brethren have 
told his offences to the Church, as the law 
demands. He repudiates it all. The com- 
mandment of Christ leaves you no alterna- 
tive. It is definite. "If he refuse to hear 
the Church, let him be unto thee as a hea- 
then man, and a publican." 

Mr. Fuller moved that the question be 
now taken, as it was apparent no defence 
was to be made. 

The motion was concurred in, 

The Moderator stated the question before 
the Church to be: Whether Rev. J. R. 
Graves is guilty of libel as charged. 

The Moderator. Those who believe that 
the charge has been sustained by the testi- 
mony adduced, will rise. 

Upon a count, eighty-four members were 
standing. 

The Moderator. Those who believe that 
the charge has not been sustained by the 
testimony adduced, will rise. 

None rose. 

The Moderator then declared that the 
church had, by a unanimous vote, decided 
that the charge had been sustained by the 
testimony. 

On motion, the meeting adjourned to 7 
o'clock Tuesday evening, with the benedic- 
tion by Dr. Howell. 



Tuesday Evening, Oct. 19, 1858. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

The proceedings were opened by reading 
; a portion of scripture by the Moderator, and 
prayer by the Rev. Mr. "Walton. 

On motion, the reading of the record was 
! dispensed with until the conclusion of the 
trial, when the whole should be read and 
passed upon. 

Mr. Fuller moved to take up the fourth 
count in the charge against the Rev. J. R. 
Graves. 

The motion was concurred in. 

Mr. Fuller said that as the evidence to 
sustain the fourth count in the charge against 
Rev. J. R. Graves is to be found not only 
in the editorial columns of various numbers 
of the Tennessee Baptist, but also in sun- 
dry letters published in that paper, he should 
beg leave to accompany the testimony with 
a running comment upon the same, which 
was the only argument the prosecution pro 
posed to offer. 

The Moderator stated that it was in the 
power of the church to grant this privilege. 

Dr. Jones suggested that as it was custo- 
mary to call upon the defendant for any re- 
butting testimony he might desire to offer, 
that it would perhaps be proper to extend 
that invitation now. 

The Moderator replied that the invitation 
would be given when the evidence offered 
by the prosecution had been heard. 

Mr. Fuller stated that the argument had 
been prepared to accompany the testimony 
in the form he had suggested, and he hoped 
the privilege of thus presenting it would be 
granted him. 

The Moderator suggested that a motion 
to grant the prosecution the privilege desired, 
would be entertained. 

Mr. Scott moved that the prosecution be 

allowed to accompany the proof to sustain 

the fourth count in the charge against Rev. 

I J. R. Graves, with a running comment, as 

\ requested. 



74 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Which motion was concurred in. 

And then, 

Mr. Fuller read the fourth count in the 
charge against Rev. J. R. Graves, and com- 
mented as follows: 

COUNT FOURTH. 

" We the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral 
and unchristian conduct, in that he has, at 
various times, attacked, slandered and 
abused ministers and brethren of high 
character, belonging to our denomination, 
throughout the country, in his said paper." 

Mr. Fuller said : 

The public press is, in our day, an en- 
gine of immense power. Properly conduct- 
ed, its blessings are in calculable. "When 
however, it becomes licentious and demor- 
alizing, it is the most withering curse with 
which any community can be visited. This 
is true of ucwspapers of every class, but 
especially is it true in relation to those that 
are professedly religious. The licentious 
character of the Tennessee Baptist, has for 
years past, been a source of deep mortifica- 
tion to many brethren, and of irreparable j 
injury to the cause of righteousness in con- 
nection with our churches. The specifica- j 
tions already before you, are sufficient' 
proof of this fact. But we proceed : 

FIRST SPECIFICATION*. 

DEFAMATION OF REV. DR. FULLER, OF I 

BALTIMORE. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 43, dated ' 
July 9th, 1853, Mr. Graves thus attacks, [ 
slanders, and abuses Rev. Dr. Fuller, of; 
Baltimore. Speaking of the session of the 
Southern Baptist Convention held in that 
city, in May of that year. Mr. Graves says: 

" A few, say three or four, appropriate 
the whole direction of the Convention to 
their own control. Great efforts at precah- 
ing and speeching, to shine on the part of 
D. D.'s and dreadful failures. Alas ! Alas! 
that great men and ministers should be 
vain and ambitious; and yet who more so?!" 
"Several local movements, of very question- 
able policy, and very singular. Dr. Fuller 
follows brother Brantly on Sabbath morn- J 



ing, in an exhortation of nearly three quar- 
ters of an hour ! and in Dr. Fuller's own 
pulpit ! ! "What could have been brother 
F.'s motive ! Did he not himself request 
that no one should say one word after he 
had preached in Xashville, at the previous 
Convention ? Do ifs alter cases ? Monday 
night Dr. Baker preached the Domestic 
Mission sermon. Requested by Dr. F. to be 
short — short since the church was going to 
ordain a young minister, and he himself 
had the charge to deliver ! ! — a very em- 
barrassing position, for the annual speaker, 
which he felt. Tuesday night set apart for 
speeches on Home Missions, and the great 
West. The time occupied by Bro. Shuck, 
followed by Dr. Fuller on the China field. 
The importance of the Domestic field, 
and the progress and prospects of missions 
in the West not presented ! Arrangements 
curiously singular! Great sensation pro- 
duced by Dr. F.'s speech. Considered high- 
ly inappropriate, inapposite, and disorgan- 
izing — had no particular point; never would 
have been taken for a missionary speech, 
Home or Foreign — was considered personal 
in some reflections on ministerial dress." 
" And speaking of apeing, we saw a bold 
specimen of it exhibited by the reprover, 
viz : When the Catholic priest enters the 
church — his stand — he kneels, and pre- 
tends to pray in the presence of the con- 
gregation, and to be seen by them, and to 
impress the people with his awe, and rev- 
erential feeling, &c. Little Methodist Cir- 
cuit Riders play off the the same trick be- 
fore their congregations and high heaven, 
for the same purpose, to be seen of men ; 
and we have seen brother Baptist ministers 
do the same thing, to our infinite disgust. 
It always appeared to us to be a species of 
detestable apeing." "How many more 
than two kinds of prayer are there, public 
and secret"} Is this minute, or half minute 
pulpit genuflection, public or secret prayer ? 
If public or social, why not pray audibly, 
that the congregation may unite in, and be 
edified by it ? If it is intended for secret 
prayer, why appear in public, and seek chus 
like a class of old, to be seen of men ? " 

Bro. Moderator. The church will see 
that in these extracts Mr. Graves brings 
the following imputations against Dr. Fuller: 

1. That he is a vain, and ambitious man. 

2. That his exhortation on Sunday, and 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



his speech on Tuesday night, in his own 
church, were ridiculous. 

3. That he treated his brethren, especial- 
ly Dr. 8. Baker, with offensive disrespect. 

4. That his Tuesday night's speech was 
disorganizing. 

5. That in it he indulged in personal re- 
flections upon his brethren. 

6. That in his proceedings he was apeing 
Catholics. 

7. That he prays in his pulpit to be seen 
of men. 

8. That he is a Pharisee. 

Put all these imputations together, and 
what a tirade for one brother to publish of 
another ! What provocation had Dr. Ful- 
ler given to Mr. Graves? None whatever. 
He had treated him with courtesy and re- 
spect. The popularity, talents, and piety 
of our Baltimore brother, undoubtedly 
were his great offence. Could the most 
malignant enemy have pursued him with 
more bitterness. In the eye of Mr. Graves, 
Dr. Fuller is vain, ambitious, ridiculous, 
offensive, a disorganiser, a censurer, apes 
Catholics, prays to be seen of men, and is 
a Pharisee. His indulgent readers are ex- 
pected to believe all this. Doubtless many 
of them do. What then must be their feel- 
ings towards that brother ? Need one word 
be said in his defence ? I presume not. 
My only purpose is to prove, as I have now 
done indisputably, that Mr. Graves did at- 
tack, slander and abuse Rev. Dr. Fuller, 
of Baltimore. This first specification is 
therefore fully sustained. 

SECOND SPECIFICATION-. 

DEFAMATIONS OF RET. DR. WALLER, OF 
KENTUCKY. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, dated October 
28th, 1854, announcing the death of Rev. 
Dr. J. L. Waller, Mr. Graves says : 

" We have differed for years, and widely 
in our opinions [with brother Waller] on 
one subject, the propriety of receiving the 
immersions of Campbellites, and Pedobap- 
tists as valid, and communing with such." 

In the Tennessee Baptist, dated August 
4th, 1855, speaking of the " Recorder when 
under brother Waller's control," Mr. Graves 
says : 

" Its guns are ' spiked with Campbellite 
gold, and Campbellite influence." 



The Long Run Association, that of which 
Dr. Waller was a member, and which em- 
I braces the churches in Louisville, at its 
1 meeting for 1855, referring to these, and 
j many other similar defamations by Mr. 
Graves, adopted and published the follow- 
ing resolution : Tennessee Baptist, Dec. 
8th 1855. 

"Resolved, That while it might have 
been expected that from interest, prejudice 
or misapprehension, some would fail to do 
justice to the character of one led so often 
to reflect upon, and expose their errors, it 
is with the deepest mortification that we 
find some Baptists volunteering to dispar- 
age his wisdom, and becloud his memory; 
especially are we astonished that a Baptist 
editor, in no equivocal manner, by slight 
implications, invidious reflections, occa- 
sional assumptions, elaborate editorials, 
adriot appeals for patronage, and articles 
of correspondents prepared to order, or 
with instructive reference to their des- 
tination, has industriously and long been 
seeking to create the impression that he has 
proved himself a more enlightened, consis- 
tent, and faithful expounder of the princi- 
ples and usages, and defender of the cause 
of the Baptists, than the illustrious and la- 
mented Waller. Of the truthfulness / mod- 
esty and disinterestedness of the assump- 
tion, let enlightened Baptists of the pres- 
ent, and future generations judge." 

Thus did that large and talented Asso- 
ciation think itself obliged to vindicate the 
character of the noblest brother among 
them, then so recently deceased, from the 
aspersions of Mr. Graves, who upon read- 
ing this rebuke was obliged to say — Ten- 
nessee Baptist, December 8th, 1855. — 
"The allusion is undoubtedly to ourself." 

Consider if you please, brother Modera- 
tor, these several extracts. What are the 
imputations they contain ? 

1. He maintains that Waller was an open 
communionist, and otherwise a man of loose 
principles. 

2. That he had been bribed by the Camp- 
bellites, and therefore durst not in his pa- 
per advocate true Baptist principles. 

3. That he Graves, and not Waller, was 
the true champion of the Baptist churches 
and people. 

4. When these defamations were set 
forth and Dr. Waller was defended, by the' 



76 



TRIAL OP REV. J R. GRAVES 



Long Run Association, Graves was excited 
to frenzy, and waged battle with them all. 

Brother Moderator, and brethren. You 
knew John L. Waller personally. Was he 
an open communionist ? AVas he a man to 
be bribed ? Was he a false or feeble advo- 
cate of Baptist principles ? W T hy did Mr. 
Graves thus assail Dr. Waller ? Was he, 
as some others have been, in Graves' way? 
Could he not bear Waller's popularity and 
greatness \ Truly " pride cometh before 
destruction; and a haughty spirit before a 
fall." 

Brother Moderator. Can there be auy 
doubt that Mr. Graves did attack, slander, 
and abuse Dr. "Waller of Kentucky? 

THIRD SPECIFICATION. 

DEFAMATIONS OF REV. DR. EVERTS OF 
LOUISVILLE. 

The assaults of Mr. Graves upon Dr. 
Everts' church, and upon Dr. Everts him- 
self, of Louisville, Kentucky, have been 
most flagrant. As to the former, in a note 
dated September 13th, 1858, Dr. Everts 
says : 

" In regard to Elder Graves' course to- 
wards Louisville Baptists, and myself, I 
would simply say that he admitted au anon- 
imous article into his paper, seriously re- 
fleeting upon the Walnut Street Baptist | 
Church, aud Pastor, and containing both 
palpable false.) LOmU and miscolorttlffS. Dr. W. , 
B. Caldwell wrote au answer in explanation, 
and vindication of our church, which as j 
he did not wish his name brought before 
the public, I forwarded, authorizing the use 
of my name as responsible for the article. 
But though au anonymous slanderous attack 
had been published, the endorsed vindica- 
tion was rejected as anonymous. Mean time 
another anonimous article was allowed to 
appear, reasserting the former slanders, 
and sowing seeds of distrust, and strife. 
Whereupon, another brother, (T. A. Reed) 
of this city, formerly a friend of Graves, 
wrote to Graves remonstrating against the 
injustice he was doing to the Walnut Street 
Baptist Church, and Pastor, by his anony- 
mous and slanderous publications, and set- 
ting us right before the readers of the Ten- 
nessee Baptist. This letter was not allowed 
to appear. Still a third, and I think a 
fourth slanderous article was allowed to ap- 
pear anonymously, with I believe, new ed- 



itorials, and enforcements, &c, &c. Bro. 
Reed, after waiting for the appearance of 
his first communication, sent a second; and 
after waiting a considerable time for the 
appearance of that, wrote a third. Wheth- 
er he was discouraged from forwarding the 
third, from what seemed persistent purpose 
to withhold justice, I know not. But some 
time later, Win. Garnet, in the Western 
Recorder, in a short article, challenged the 
name of the writer of these calumnious ar- 
ticles, and pledged himself to prove five 
palpable falsehoods in them, as well as gross 
miscolorings, if a responsible name were 
given. All this passed, but no justice was 
ever done to us by the Tennessee Baptist, 
or apology offered. And to the publicity 
given to slanders by that paper, without cor- 
rection, we trace the jealousies and distrust, 
that have obtained against the Louisville 
Baptists to this day, throughout the South 
West. Fellowship and confidence have 
been impaired, and jealousy and distrust 
spread, by the injustice of the Tennessee 
Baptist. 

Dr. Everts further says: "A year ago last 
May, in the presence of Dr. Eaton, these 
matters were talked over with Elder Graves. 
He made explanations, and removed some of 
my objections to him personally in the mat- 
ter, by attributing the responsibility to 
some persons in Kentucky, whom he had 
trusted, and whom he had [then] learned 
to distrust as designing and mischief-ma- 
king men. As my mind was disposed to 
charity, and I believed Graves a perfect man 
compared with some among us, I considered 
the matter settled, and at Graves' request, 
last January wrote him to that effect, and 
he published my letter in the Baptist, I 
think, in February or March." 

This matter of falsehood and slander, 
may be considered by Dr. Everts settled so 
far as he is concerned. That, however, 
does not relieve this church from the re- 
sponsibility of looking into it, and re- 
lieving itself from any complicity in these 
crimes by administering to their perpetra- 
tor a just and scriptural rebuke. 

31 r. Graves' assaults upon Dr. Everts 
himself were still more flagrant. At the 
meeting of the Long Run Association of 
Kentucky for 1855, which includes the 
churches of Louisville, and of which J. L. 
Waller was a member, a committee made a 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



report for publication in its minutes, ex- 
p moo ive of the feelings of that body in re- 
gard to the death of that distinguished man. 
Of that committee Dr. Everts was chair- 
man. The report was brief, and closed with 
three resolutions. The first lamented his 
death as a great loss to the Baptist denom- 
ination ; the second referred to him as one 
of the wisest and most effective champions 
of our cause, and the third deprecated the 
attacks which even some Baptists, and Bap- 
tist editors, naming none however, specifi- 
cally, had made upon him. In the Tennes- 
see Baptist, No 14, dated December 8th, 
1855, referring to this report of a com- 
mittee generally, of which Dr. Everts was 
chairman simply, and to the last resolution 
ally, Mr. Graves says : 

"The allusion is undoubtedly to ourself. 
It excites no emotion in our heart, but the 
deepest sympathy for the poor man whose 
heart and head were in a condition to de- 
liberately elaborate such a specimen of ma- 
lignity, insane; for Elder Everts' madness 
towards us, seems to overcome bis reason, 
sense of propriety, and sober judgment. 
What an indignity to the departed dead, to 
have such an epitaph [the resolutions] en- 
graved by the hand of the Association of 
which he was a member ! "What an insult 
offered to the Association ! When they 
should be called to weep — to balm the 
memory of a loved and departed brother 
with tears of sacred affection, and holiest 
.recollections, to have every fiend in their 
natures addressed, their basest feelings ap- 
pealed to, and the intensest hatred excited 
towards a living brother in Christ ! ! [that 
is J. R. Graves.] Whom did Elder Everts 
gratify by his own insatiate thirst for re- 
venge ? Is such an offering acceptable to 
the surviving brothers and sisters of Brother 
"Waller ? We know them better, for we 
know most of them well. Whom of the 
fifty-eight delegates [who by the way voted 
for them] did he gratify ? How many were 
prepared to affirm the charges embraced in 
the resolutions? It was a morsel sweet to 
the palate of Elder Everts alone — a morsel 
that he deliberately prepared in the solitude 
of his study, in which we suppose he made 
his book of prayers! Wonder if he knelt 
down, and read one of those prayers over 
this so-called 'Report on the death of the 



| lamented Waller,' but in fact a malignant 
I aspersion of a brother minister ! To our 
j readers we need not say that the resolution 
is a compound of falsehood in the general 
and in the concrete; that it seems imbued 
with the intensest malignity ? It is an at- 
tempt to skulk behind the body of a dead 
brother in order the more effectually to strike 
a living one through the heart. The labor 
of Elder Everts and all those who carp so 
much about injury done [by J. R, Graves] 
to Brother Waller's fame, evidently is not 
so much to excite admiration in the hearts 
of Baptists for Brother Waller, as preju- 
dice, and hatred towards ourself — not [so 
! much] to call attention to his virtues, as to 
1 failings attributed to us. In behalf of our 
I late brother Waller, and in behalf of his 
' surviving relatives, we entreat the Long 
Run Association at its next session to re- 
consider, and expunge this resolution from 
its minutes; [which, however, they never 
did, but adhered to it;] and, in the place of 
a slander upon a living brother, insert an 
honorable encomium upon the departed one. 
"Whatever may be our transgressions, such 
obituary notice is a burning shame to any 
Baptist Association — a disgrace to civilized 
humanity." 

Mr. Graves further says in the same pa- 
per : " We have read the above resolutions 
in the columns of the Western Recorder ! 
By whose agency, or advice, were they in- 
serted in the Recorder? The Association 
did request it. Did brother Cooper, 
the local agent, insert them without consul- 
tation, or advice ? He has no cause to as- 
perse, or defame us. Did the [editorial] 
Committee, Dr. Caldwell, Tyler, and Bran- 
ning, order their insertion ? But they are 
cultivating peace, and never say, do, or have 
done, ought to our prejudice, or injury. It 
would falsify their professions ; prove them 
the most arrant hypocrites under the sun, to 
accuse them of ordering, or conniving at the 
insertion of such an abusive article Who 
but the author — Elder Everts — secured 
their republication in the Recvcdcr? the 
last sting that the unsanctified spirit that 
conceived them, saw the means of inflict- 
I ing ! The man who could prepare such res- 
| olutions to read over the dead, can do any- 
thing that he imagines the cloak, and pro- 
fession of religion will cover. Such a man 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



make prayers for Christians to read, and 
study, in order to imbue their souls with 
the spirit of Christ '( ! ! The worst wish 
we wish Elder Everts is, thai he may be 
brought to see this act in the nght that ev- 
ery unprejudiced Christian looks upon it, 
and repent of it j and for the honor of a 
common humanity, and Christianity, if he 
will asperse, and slander his brethren, take 
some other occasion than an obituary notice 
to do it. We regret to be called upon to 
rebuke so severely, but such an act is so 
flagrant, that nv) reproof run equal it. Nor 
will we wink at such acts, though perpetra- 
ted by a Baptist minister — though a D. D." 
Brother xYloderator : A summary of the 
iniquities of Mr. Graves developed in this 
specification need not be made. The whole 
exhibition is outrageous in the highest de- 
gree. Can a Christian man conduct him- ' 
self in this manner ? It seems to me im- 
possible. Vet, Mr. Graves professes to be 
a Christian, and a minister of Christ. As 
a member of this church we are considered 
as endorsing him, because we have not 
called him to account. But my object 
here, is to show in what manner, and ttyle, 
Mr. Graves in his said paper, attacked, 
slandered, and abused Rev. Dr. Everts, of 
Louisville. Nor has he, to this day, that 
we have seen, or heard of, in any public 
way, withdrawn, or apologised for his of- 
fensive assaults. 

FOURTH SPECIFICATION. 

DEFAMATIONS OF REV. DR. DUNCAN, OF 
NEW ORLEANS. 

Mr. Graves is charged with having at- 
tacked, slandered, and abused Rev. l)r. 
Duncan, of Xew< Means. In a note dated 
at New Orleans, June 8th, 1858, Dr. D. 
say- : 

"I send you a copy of the pamphlet; 
about J. R. Graves." " The Dictator ought | 
long since to have been put down, as far as 
his church can effect so desirable an object." j 
It is entitled — " Xew Orleans Weekly Bap- 
tist Chronicle," dated November, 1851, 
and contains the ''Defence against false 
charges, and misrepresentations of Rev. J. 
R. Graves." In this paper he thus addresses, 
you : (i We call upon the church of which 
Mr. Craves is a member, to listen to the 
allegations which we now make against 
him, and substantiate by proof that cannot 



be gainsayed, and when they have heard, 
to act in a inanner becoming < heir position, 
and responsiMity." He definitely charges 
Mr. Graves with " Misrepresentations in 
three modes" and says : " On these three 
counts, we distinctly charge, and arraign 
J. R. Graves for falsehood.' 1 '' The paper 
then goes on to establish, and does estab- 
lish these charges incontestibly. Dr. Dun- 
can further says : " We deem it proper to 
call the attention of the South-West, and 
South, to some among his numerous false- 
hoods, and misrepresentations. This is 
done, not so much to defend the reputation 
of the Senior Editor [of the Chronicle,] 
who personally feels himself beyond the 
reach of the envenomed shafts, hurled by 
so unrighteous a hand, as to show Southern 
Baptists what is the moral character of him 
who seeks to destroy a press that is labor- 
ing, and has long labored for the denomi- 
nation; and who, as the conductor of a 
Baptist paper of wide circulation, has it in 
his power to inflict much evil upon our 
cause, and to bring destruction upon many 
of those who, doubting the propriety of 
his course, openly express their disapproba- 
tion. If the Tennessee Baptist be sustain- 
ed in its conduct towards the Senior Editor 
of the New Orleans Chronicle, by ^he voice 
of the denomination in the South- West, or 
any large part of it, then have we estab- 
lished among us, and over us, a Dictator 
that will henceforth rule us with a rod of 
iron. If an editor among us can attack 
personally, any Baptist whom he pleases, 
and then exclude him from all defence be- 
fore the same tribunal ; if he can do this 
unrebuked, and unpunished ; our denomi- 
national freedom is gone." 

Mr. Duncan further says : " It is with a 
very sad heart that we enter upon this mat- 
ter. God knows that we have tried to 
avoid it. He has several times pro- 
posed arbitration of the points at issue 
between him, and the Editor of the [Ten- 
nessee] Baptist, but these proposals were 
treated with silence, or rejection. He 
[Duncan] has asked repeatedly, to be allow- 
ed a defence in the columns of the Tennes- 
see Baptist, and has as often been refused. 
He has written private letters, requesting 
that these repeated acts of hostility should 
cease, or that responses should be allowed 
in the [Tennessee] Baptist, but the attacks 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



have not ceased, and the responses have not 
been allowed. Such has been the state of 
the matter for more than a year. It is im- 
possible to get a show of fairness, much 
less justice from the [Tennessee] Baptist. 
Not only has it not published Mr. D.'s an- 
swers, but it has not stated even in its own 
words, the substance of his replies, and 
has never to this day, even given a true 
statement of the leading views entertained 
by Mr. D. on the points on which he has 
been so mercilessly attacked by the [Ten- 
] Baptist.*' 

Dr. Duncan concluded hi? " Defence" 
thus : " But enough." " Let Baptists read 
what we have said. God is our judge, 
that we have acted with much reluctance, 
and after striving to settle this difficulty 
with Mr. G. in some manner less objection- 
able, and less painful to the feelings of all 
interested. Mr. Graves will not listen to 
reason. Did we think him merely misled, 
we should do otherwise than this : but the 
evidence of his intentional wrong-doing of 
a cherished purpose to crush the Chronicle, 
and all connected with Professor Duncan, 
(if he can,) is to our mind, as clear as the 
sun at mid-day." "We deliberately arraign 
J. R. Graves,' Baptist editor of Tennessee, 
before the denomination, on the charge of 
r falsehood and m ^representation. Our 
proofs have been adduced. Judge between 
us, ye that are interested. Acquit him of 
falsehood if you can. Acquit him of mis- 
representation if you can. One thing, 
however do, say now whether a man so 
careless of truth, so hasty, so fell in his 
hostility, so incapable of discussing any 
subject with candor and fairness, so unjust 
to his opponents, is fit to lead, nay, to 
govern, (for govern is what he is clearly 
ryingto do) the denomination in the South- 
West. Decide now, Baptists that are free, 
whether the despotism of this man is to 
stand, or fall. His committed partisans, no 
doubt will uphold him, be he false, or be 
he true. But will the intelligent, the 
thinking, the freedom-loving among our 
Baptists, defend, and sustain him in this 
high-handed course of injustice, and ini- 
quity?" 

Our charge against Mr. Graves is, that 
he has in his paper, attacked, slandered, 
and abused Rev. Dr. Duncan, of Xew Or- 
leans. Ani if Dr. D. is to be believed, if 



the testimony in this case now before you, 
deliberately prepared, and published by 
him to the world, is reliable, those attacks, 
and that slander and abuse were most fla- 
grant. I call upon the church to notice as 
follows : 

1. Mr. Graves is guilty of uttering against 
Dr. Duncan, " numerous falsehoods. " 

2. Mr. Graves is guilty of perpetrating 
against Dr. Duncan, " numerous misrepre- 
sentation's." 

. 3. Mr. Graves refused Dr. Duncan the 
privilege of replying to these assaults 
through his paper, in which they were 
made, although it was frequently solicited. 

4. Mr. Graves refused to state even in 
his own words, the substance of Dr. Dun- 
can's replies, and also to give a true state- 
ment of Dr. D.'s views. 

5. Dr. Duncan several times proposed to 
Mr. Graves a private arbitration to settle 
points at issue between them. Mr. Graves 
rejected his overtures. 

6. Dr. Duncan appealed to this church. 
The case is now at last before you legally. 
and formally. You are called to pronounce 
upon it, and you will pronounce upon it 
fearlessly, as the word of God may seem to 
you to demand. 

FIFTH SPECIFICATION. 
DEFAMATIONS OF REV. MR. TUSTIX, OF 
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
During many months past, Mr. Graves 
has been attacking, slandering, and abusing 
Rev. J. P. Tustin, of Charleston, South Caro- 
lina, in a style and manner; very similar to 
that which characterized his pursuit of Dr. 
Duncan, just now considered. All who 
know anything of Mr. T., or of his paper, 
| know him to be courteous, gentlemanly, 
I and polished in all his intercourse, and 
! writings. He is received, and endorsed by 
i his church in Charleston, as a true Baptist, 
I sound in doctrine, and in morals unim- 
j peachable. He is also endorsed by the 
| Southern Baptist Publication Society, hav- 
| ing for several consecutive years, been ap- 
pointed its Corresponding Secretary, which 
office he continued to fill, until he volunta- 
rily declined a re-appointment, but still 
continues one of its directors. This is the 
man that Mr. Graves has been denouncing 
for more than a year past, as a Pedobaptist 
in disguise, a Presbyterian in principle, 



80 



TRIAL OP REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



and a secret open comrnunionist. The 
truth of all this Mr. Tustia earnestly, and 
persistently denies. His brethren also, 
who know him intimately, declare that all 
these attacks upon him, are slanderous, and 
the imputations unjust. This however, 
makes no difference with Mr. Graves. He 
goes on with his slanderous declarations, just 
as if nothing had been said, nor any deni- 
als made. 

The origin of this attack seems to have 
been as follows: Rev. J. S. Baker, say, in 
the Christian Index, Vol. 37, No. 17, dated 
April 28, 1868: 

" In the year 1855, I wrote a series of 
articles, which were published in the Ten- 
nessee Baptist. In a note appended to 
one of the articles, is the following state- 
ment : 

" I am credibly informed, that oue of 
the principal advocates of the resolution 
proposing to invite Pedobaptists to Beats 
with us at our Biennial Convention in 1855, 
has said that he would have no scruples in 
communing with them at the Lord's table, 
if it were not contrary to Baptist usage." 

This produced no hue and cry at that 
time; led no one to question the truth of 
the information I had received; but Bince 
brethreu have allowed their feelings to be- 
come exasperated by the disgraceful war- 
fare which they are carrying on against 
each other, repeated allusions have been 
made to it by editors, and others. 

" As soon as I discovered that brother 
Tustin was the individual supposed to be 
referred to by me, and before I knew that 
brother Graves had adduced it to convict 
brother Tustin of holding sentiments favo- 
rable to mixed communion, I wrote to bro- 
ther Tustin, informing him that my refer- 
ence was not to him, but to ' a popular' (or 
' prominent/ I am not certain which word 
was used) Baptist minister of Georgia." 

This denial by Dr. Baker, which was 
also communicated to Mr. Graves, had no 
effect. Mr. Tustin was Corresponding 
Secretary of the Southern Baptist Publi- 
cation Society, and although Mr. Graves 
afterwards charged it upon Dr. Dawson, 
still he held on to his charges upon Mr. 
Tustin. True, he professed to have proved 
it by certificates. You have, however, but 



too many evidences that certain men cau 
prove by certificate, about any thing they 
choose to prove. A man declares that he 
does not believe a thing, and never did be- 
lieve it. But no matter for all this, Mr. 
Graves proves by certificates that he does 
believe it ! Upon some of you this game 
has of late, been very conspicuously played. 
To extract but a small part of what Mr. 
Graves has said, would of itself, occupy 
hours of your time. Two, or three articles, 
are sufficient for our purpose. 

In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 49, Aug 
15th, 1857, Mr. Graves, speaking of Mr' 
Tustin, says : 

" Did we seek to ruin him, it is in our 
power to effect it as easily as we write this 
paragraph.'' "He [Tustin] denies that he 
ever admitted his preference for the Pres- 
byterian form of Church Government over 
th Baptist; and also, if he knew an open 
communion Baptist church that was respec- 
table he would hook on to it." 

Mr. Graves affects great surprise at these 
denials. And in the Tennessee Baptist, 
No. 50, August 22d, 1857, Mr. Graves 
says, derisively : 

31 r. Tustin, " A Charleston Baptist min- 
ister, and Corresponding Secretary of the 
Southern Baptist Publication Society ! ! ! 
receiving a thousand dollars per annum as 
the pastor, or supply of a Pedobaptist Soci- 
ety!" 

To preach regularly in a Pedobaptist 
house of worship, may be a great sin. If 
any of you think so, I beg to call your at- 
tention to the following, in the Tennessee 
Baptist, No. 26, March 6th, 1858, in which 
article, Mr. Graves says : 

"Through the kindness of the New 
School Presbyterians, we have been invited 
to occupy the large Presbyterian house, [in 
Gallatin,] two Sabbaths in the mouth, 
until we can erect one." 

Mr. Graves accepted this invitation, as 
you know, and has been preaching in that 
house now more than a year! Why then 
does he condemn Mr. Tustin for like con- 
duct 1 

This specification needs no analysis. It 
is certain that Mr. Graves has attacked, 
i, and abused, Rev. J. P. Tustin, 
of Charleston. South Carolina. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



81 



^IXTII SPECIFICATION. 

DEFAMATIONS OF REV. DR. DAWSON 
BGIA. 



(guilty party. His language is as follows : 
"Our brother Dawson, is that very iden- 
tical popular preacher in Georgia, who has 
Mr least once in the hearing of unimpeacha- 
During a year or more past, Mr. Graves n -, u„^„~ n a -\ n- ir .. r> 
. v',, . We witnesses, declared himself not a Baptist 

:i endeavoring to make the mipres- i ,,«. 1:1 t ►: 

, . , . , / lint like iustm, an open communtontst at 

more cultivated and en- h ^ n T do Qot he] -J e t]jat he ^ ^ 

» our I" ' : I- '• are u,lJt ' r deny that he has said that he is willing to 
thc,n ' - g tendency to open int0 comrminion if the Ge0 ° rgia 

communion • and especially that influential ^ hurches genera iiy will do so." 
ministers at the .North, and at the bouth, n-., • „i°„„ -n " n „„„ • „ r , 1 1 ■, 
. . . , . iJiis charge Dr. Dawson immediate] v laid 

are now pl«>ttii)LT to lead our brethren into 



before his church in Columbus, bv which it 
that heresy; and that particularly the waa fully investigated, and in a pubhcation 

whole .North "are npon the verge of the unJer d: ; te of Ju V the 8|h 1858 officiaFl7 
plunge into open communion ,, eclared by t])em tn ljp .« wit , 10ut t]ie ]eak 

In J h * l J . u - foundation/' See S. W. Bapt., July 29th 

ary 2, th. I808, Mr. Gn 

••That a scheme is being plotted, and l 
the elements at work, to open-comm 
the Baptist denomination in America, we 
have long had reason to fear, and that a 



1S5S. 

On this whole subject Dr. Dawson writes 
under date of Newnan, Georgia, September, 
17th, 185S, as follows: 

The essential facts between J. R. Graves 



large body of Northern Baptists are upon anc ] myself are in print, and you can find 
the verge of the plunge into open coinmu- them in the Index" newspaper. 



nion at the table, as well as in baptism, 

and in the pulpit, we have long been satis- 
nd that there are mea in the South 

the move, cannot be ques- them before the church in Columbus. 
': men whose published sentiments | investigation was at once instituted 



"When the articles appeared in the Ten 
nessee Baptist, accusing me of being an open 
communionist, I felt it my duty to lay 

An 

Mr. 



are even now preparing the way before the Graves was written to, and every means 
denomination." adopted to ob ain the facts in the case. The 

The " published works'' here denounced result was that no evidence could be found 
by later numhers of his paper to be J and the church pronounced the charge 
)f brethren Mell, Fuller, Taylor, Without foundation." The most offensive 
Bowen, Howell, and probably some others. ! ar ti e le was signed "Probus." Both the 
In his preface to the "History of Open church and myself, demanded of Mr. Graves 
Communion" by Orchard, Mr. Graves says: the real name of the author. This he re- 
in the last century the American Baptists : fused to give, but gave James Perrvman, of 
have, through the influence of great names, i Buena Vista, Geo., as Probus' authority. 
and leading influential ministers, been in- I sought an interview with Perryman, in- 
sensibly drawn into the very outer circles of tending to report his case to his Church, un- 
open communion." "Our Doctors of Di- l ess ] ie could give me satisfaction. In the 
vinity, popular metropolitan preachers, the presence of several brethren, he utterly de- 



Presidents, and professors of our Colleges, 
and members, and brethren high in position, 
and popular favor," have "brought the de- 
nomination to the very verge of the plunge 
into open communion." 

It was intimated by Dr. J. S. Baker, a 
minister of Florida, in an article some years 
since, that one brother of high standing in 



nied having ever told Probus, or Graves, or 
any one else any such thing, or having used 
any language justifying such charges. This 
is still his position so far as I know. The 
charges made by Probus, I have denoune 
ed, as "wilful falsehoods." I now repeat 
this, I never used such language, or any- 
thing like it. Perryman will give his cir- 



Georgia was known to have a strong lean- 1 tificate, that he never told Graves, or Pro- 
ing in that direction. And early in the : bus anv such things. The falsehood is be- 
present year, an anonymous writer, signing tween Probus and^Perryman, and the only 
himself "Probus" asserted in the Tennessee ; question is, who is Probus? I suppose 
Baptist, that Rev. J. E. Dawson was the | Graves will not deny being himself (Pro- 
6 



82 (TIRAL OF REV. J. R GRAVES. 



bus) the author. If this 13 so, then, the j that a conversation had taken place between 
case is in a nutshell. And until Graves i Johnson and Xeal. 

can prove himself clear (bj showing that • There never was a plainer case than this. 
he himself is not Probus, which he can on- I charge Probus with publishing "wilful 
ly do by a certificate from Probus himself, falsehoods." Probus is Graves. He gives 
over his real name) he stands before the Perryman as his author. • Perryman utterly 
christian world charged with wilful '-false- denies being his author. Graves must provf 
hood." j that Perryman has lied, or the sin attaches 

The charges made against me in the Ten- : to him. If he does the former, Perryman 
nessee Baptist are of the most serious char- * unworthy of membership. If he cannot 
acter, and if sustained, would forever de- do tllls , then he is unworthy. No christian 
stroy my usefulness, and depose me from who has any sense of propriety, can justify 
the ministry, if no more. Shall such con- : su ch conduct ; nor can any cause long pros- 
duct be tolerated in the Churches ? Shall P^r which tolerates such offenders ; indeed 
Church members be allowed to publish such | lfc would be attempted under no other cir- 
cle slanders, with impunity ? If so, what cumstances. The position that one chris- 
is Church membership worth ? Whose rep- tian ma ) T slander another, simply because he 

happens to be the editor of a paper, is both 
sinful, and foolish ; and the effort to pass 
these things by as mere rumor, of rto conse- 



Of course I cannot say which is the guil- 



ty party, Graves or Perryman. The fa indicates a very depraved judgment 

hood is with them. But until Graves makes and a ]ow standard of m0 rality." 

a better showing than he has done, the: Thus has Mr Graves . as chargedi attack . 
charge 19 upon him. Graves tr.es to evade cd> g i anderedj and abused Rev. Dr. Dawson, 
the question, and to change the simple issue, of ( >orgi& . Nothing need be added by me 
but he cannot do this. His charges against j to make the ca3e more lain Dr Daw801l » 8 
me are distinct. lie gives Perryman as the ' own statement ia amD ] e in tbe prera ise3. I 
author of these charges. Perryman utterly \ proceed now t0 lbe Ja8t specification under 
denies the truth of it. Tins is the issue, t }^ 3 coun t # 
and he cannot escape it. If Perryman told 

him these things, he is thus far vindicated SEVENTH specification. 

(though still a libeller for having published DEFAMATIONS of the bible board. 
them in his paper.) If he (Perryman) did Jn ^ Tennes3ee B tist wboge editor 
not, he is guilty, and in my opinion nnwor- -, one of the Vlce Presidents of the Bo ^ 
thy of Church membership, until he makes No 23 dafced Februarj 13ll 1858 Ml . 
atonement to the injured party. Graves ^ . 

The fact that Graves is an editor, J3 no "There is manifestly a systematic attempt 
excuse. An editor has no more right to lie, to cripple down the Secretary of the Bible 
or slander a brother, than any other man. As Board, on thepart of Anti-Landmark men, 
the facts are now before me, he has done and editors. We allude to what lias ap- 
both, and the Church is induty. bound to en- peared in the Journal [Home and Foreign] 
force a healthy discipline." 'As this thing from his associate editors [J. B. Taylor, 
now stands, I cannot think of Graves but ; A. M. Poindexter, and R. Holman] and 
'ifvl slanderer. I can have no conn- , the course of a part of the Baptist press, 
dence in any thing he says. If he can and the Anti-Landmark portion of the 
prove himself clear I shall be gratified, and , Board." All these things are calculated to 
will acknowledge the fact publicly, but un- ! make the position of the Corresponding Sec- 
til he does, he must [himself] admit the j retary uncomfortable, destroy his peace, 
justice of my position. Graves published j and paralyse his influence, and usefulness." 
an extract from a letter of Perryman, to I "Brother Dayton can be easily driven from 



the effect that he had proof to establish 
my guilt. This letter is no proof, and 
Graves must know it. Perryman never 
said that he had proof to establish the char- 
ges made by Probus, but [that he had proof] 



the Board, and will certainly be by this 
treatment, but will the Board supply his 
place with a better man ? He has done too 
much good to be let alone. He is enjoying 
too much of the love, and attracting too 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVE; 



83 



much of the attention of Baptists, not<tobe 
compelled to suffer the penalty that superi- 
ority, or graet usefulness is ever doomed to 
pay." 

March 
6th, 185S, Mr. Graves Bays, " The first 

upon Brother Dayton did not 
with this Sunday School Union. The 

tie leader of the Ann Landmark 
Baptists in this State, was ' A member of 
the Bible Board.' " " When the second vo- 
lume of Theodosia appeared, and there was a 
probability, amounting to logical certainty. 
that the question would be set at rest, whe- 
ther Pedobaptists were true churches of 

and whether not being such, they 
could have any lawfully ordained ministers, 
he made no attempt to reply to the argu- 
ments, but labored by artfully insinuated 
inuendoes to destroy the influence of the 
book/' "by intimations that the author wrote 
not for the sake of truth, but for the love of 
• This was probably intended to 
reach Louisville in time to prevent the re- 
appointment of so bad a man as Brother 
Dayton to so important an office as Cor- 
responding Secretary." 

He further says in the same paper: — ' ; If 
Brother Dayton flattered himself that he 
would be permitted to rest in peace while 
his books were every day gaining larger 
circulation, and exerting a larger and more 
controlling influence over the minds of the 

;,kers among the Baptists, he soon 

:ed that he was very much mistaken. 
A few months only had elapsed when 'A 
Member of the Bible Board 7 found occasion 
to introduce a resolution in the Board, call- 
ing for the appointment of a committee to 
examine .the records of the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention, and ascertain the exact re- 
lation which the Bible Board was intended 
by the Convention, to sustain to the circula- 
tion of the Bible, and other religious books. 
The committee brought in a report, pre 
pared without doubt, by the same member 
of the Board who moved the appointment.' 
,; Nc inconsiderable part of it [was] designed 
to condemn or criminate the Secretary." "As 
the matter has thus, [in newspaper articles] 
been made public by others, and the Bible 
Board has by them been dragged into this 
controversv, much to our regret, we shall 
recur to this report again. But let no one 
charge us with having involved the Bible 



I Board in the dispute. "We wish the ene- 
: :he [Southern Baptist Sunday School] 
L'nion, and the Old Landmark, could have 
let the Board alone. But since they seem 
to be determined to use it, and if need be 
destroy it for the sake of injuring the Land- 
mark members of it. and the President of 
the Sunday School Union, we cannot help 

And still further in the same paper Mr. 
1 Graves says : — " If the object is, as the 
manifestations force us to believe, to drive 
Brother Dayton from the Board, it is very 
probable they will succeed." 

The Tennessee Baptist of April 10th, 
1858, has the following announcement from 
Mr. Graves : — 

i "Brother Dayton, tendered his resigna- 
tion to the Bible Board last Monday, to 
take effect immediately. There are some 
who will read this with pleasure." 

In the Tennessee Baptist, Xo. 36, dated 
May loth, 1858, Mr. Graves says: — 

"We venture to prophecy that in less than 
four years there will be an attempt made 
to transfer the Bible Board from Nashville 
to Charleston, and combine its work with 
: that of the Southern Publication Society. 
And if this plan should succeed, and the 
Board of that Society be created a Board of 
the Southern Baptist Convention, no one of 
the accusers of Brother Dayton will see any 
need of any more explicit instructions than 
: the Bible Board has already received from 
the Baltimore, Montgomery and Louisville 
Conventions, to authorize it to engage 
largely in the joint distribution of Bibles,. 
' and our denominational and other religious 
books : not a single dog of them all will so 
I much as wag his tongue in condemnation of 
j them. And then will be rendered plain 
; what now we can only guess at, for whe- 
Ither there may not have been a secret, plot 
i to ruin and destroy the credit of the Bible 
Board in Nashville, for the purpose of alien- 
ating the confidence of the churches, and 
! the brethren from it, and thus prepare the- 
way for the removal of the Board to Charles- 
ton." 

Brother Moderator: Allow me to call 
your attention, and that of the church, to 
j the following points which are contained in 
the extracts now read from Mr. Graves' paper. 
He maintains, as an analysis will show, the 
following propositions: — 



s4 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



1. That a majority of the Bible Board of 
the Southern Baptist Convention, conspired 
with certain men and editors, to "cripple 
down" Mr. Dayton. 

2. That the'Bible Board of the Southern 
Baptist Convention sought to annoy Mr 
Dayton and to destroy his influence and 
useful 

3. That the Bible Board of the Southern 

' Convention could not let Mr. Day- 
ton alone because he had done so much 
good. 

4. That the Bible Board of the Southern 
Baptist Convention, persecuted Mr. Dayton 
from envy of his great popularity. 

5. That because Mr. Dayton was superior 
to any of them, the Board sought to drive 
him from his office. 

G. That th« Bible Board of the^Southern 
Baptist Convention persecuted Mr Dayton 
because he had proved in his book, tl 

have no true churches, nor lawfully 
ordained ministers. 

7. That these officials of the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention pursued Mr. Dayton from 
the Board because his books had so large a 

tien, and exerted an influence so con- 
trolling over the minds of the best thinkers 
among the Baptists. 

8. That the object of the report of the 
committee of January last, was to criminate 
the Secretary, and thus secure the nefarious 
purposes dictated by envy, ambition, and 
malice. 

9. That the majority of the Board were 
determined to use it, and if need be 

it, for the sake of injuring the Landmark 
members of it, and Mr. Dayton. 

10. That there was a secret plot in the 
Bible Board of the Southern Baptist Con- 



Mr. Graves and his allies speak in such 
terms in a public newspaper? As citizens, 
and professional and business men, they are 
regarded as equal to any others in this city. 
As Christians, and members of this church, 
they are among the most honored, intelli- 
gent, pious, and useful of our brethren. 
They are men well known and intrusted by 
our brethren of the Southern Baptist Con- 
vention, with the management of one of its 
Boards. Not a few of them are honored 
as our city officers. They have no personal 
interests whatever to subserve, and are ut- 
terly incapable of the low jealousy, envy, 
ambition, and malice of which they are so 
wantonly accused by J. R. Graves and his 
pliant associates. Week after week, and 
month after month the}* have for years neg- 
lected their own private business, and often 
pressing obligations, to attend to the inter- 
ests entrusted to this Board. They are also 
the very members who are generally pre- 
sent at its meetings, and best acquainted 
with all it3 affairs. What they do in this 
department is purely a work of faith and 
labor of love, for the advancement of the 
cause of truth and salvation. If such breth 
ren as these may not be trusted, in whom 
can we place confidence. They are worthy 
compeers of their brethren of the Foreign 
Mission Board in Richmond, Virginia, and 
of the Home Mission Board in Marion, Ala- 
bama. And who is their accuser? This 
trial has thus far shown, and the next count 
will show still more fully who he is. But 
I need not thus detain you. We have 
now seen how Mr. Graves has attacked, 
slandered and abused the Bible Board of 
the Southern Baptist Convention. 

I now submit this count, brother Mode- 



vention to ruin and destroy its credit, and j rator, to the judgment of the church, the 
alienate from it the confidence of the churches- judges, and the only scriptural judges of the 



ana brethren, in order to get it removed to 

11. That when this is done the Southern 
Baptist Publication Society will use it for 
its purposes, and no one will complain. 

12. That the Bible Board of the Southern 
Baptist Convention is made up of a set of 
dogs. 

Of all this, brother Moderator, and breth- 



ren, what shall 



we say; 



li 



ave you ever 



seen a more malignant exhibition of hatred, 
slander, abuse, defamation ? And who are 
these members of the Bible Board of whom 



law, and the facts. You have now seen 
from ample unimpeachable and unquestion- 
able testimony, that J. R. Graves is guilty 
of having gratuitously attacked, slandered, 
and abused, Rev. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore; 
Rev. Dr. Waller, now deceased, of Ken- 
tucky, Rev. Dr. Everts, of Louisville, Rev. 
Dr. Duncan, of New Orleans, Rev. Mr. 
Tustin, of Charleston, Rev. Dr. Dawson, of 
Georgia, and the Bible Board of the South- 
ern Baptist Convention. We might, in- 
deed, have introduced many others as hav- 
ing been the objects of similar defamations, 



TRIAL OF REV J. R. GRAVES. 



85 



as Rev. Dr. Crowell, of Missouri, Rev. W. 
;ie, Bestor, Chambless and Rev. Dr. 
Teasdale, of Mississippi, Rev. Messrs. Tiche- 
ner, Henderson, and Taliaferro, of Alabama, 
Rev. Dr. Manly, and Mr. Kendrick, of 
Charleston, Rev. Mr. Hillsman, of Knox- 
ville, Rev. Mr. Coleman, of Arkansas, Rev. 
Dr. Lynd, and brethren Caldwell, Brannen, 
and Tyler, of Kentucky, Rev. Drs. Dagg 
and Mell, of Georgia, and others. But we 
will not do so. We have presented a 
few names only, of the many of whom 
J. R. Graves is the public accuser, and 
defamer. The divine injunction in cases 
like this is imperative. The church, I 
doubt not, will obey it to the letter: — 
" Them that sin rebuke before all, that 
others also may fear." 

The Moderator inquired whether there 
were any other remarks or testimony to be 
presented. 

Mr. S. A. Davidson said he wished to 
express his views upon the whole subject, 
and inquired whether it would be in order 
to do so now. 

The Moderator replied that it would not 
until the question now before the church 
was disposed of. 

Mr. Davidson said he had acted with the 
minority during the progress of this trial, 
and he desired an opportunity to express 
his views upon the whole matter, and his 
object now was to inquire when it would be 
in order to do so. 

The Moderator explained that a decision 
upon the fourth count would not be a dis- 
posal of the whole subject, but that that it 
would come up for the future action of the 
church, at which time the brother would be 
afforded the opportunity he desired. 

Mr. Davidson then gave notice that when 
the matter came up for final disposal, he 
should make a speech covering the whole 
ground, in which he would express his 
views touching the case. 

The Moderator stated that if there was 
any rebutting testimony to be offered, it 
would now be heard. 



None being offered, 

Mr. Fuller remarked it is apparent that 
no testimony is to be offered by the defend- 
ant, and he moved that the question be now 
submitted to the church. 

The motion was concurred, in when 

Mr. Fuller again read the fourth count 
in the charge against Rev. J. R. Graves. 

The Moderator. — Those who believe that 
the fourth count in the charge against, Rev. 
J. R. Graves has been sustained by the 
testimony adduced, will rise. 

Upon a count it was ascertained that 
seventy-six members were standing. 

The Moderator. — Those who believe that 
the fourth count in the charge against the 
Rev. J. R. Graves has not been sustained 
by the testimony adduced, will rise. 

None rose. 

The Moderator then declared that the 
church had unanimously decided that the 
fourth count in the charge against the Rev. 
J. R. Graves had been sustained by the tes- 
timony adduced. 

Dr. Howell asked leave to make a per- 
sonal explanation. 

Leave was granted. 

Dr. Howell said he had to-day received 
a note, from which he wished to read an 
extract. He did not know the author per- 
sonally, but was advised that he is a man 
of truth and integrity, and a member in 
good standing of the Baptist Church in his 
neighborhood. He read as follows : 

Fayetteyille, Tejjn., Oct. 15, 1858. 
Rev. Dr. Howell. 

Dear Sir: I saw and conversed with a 
gentleman a day or two ago, that was a 
delegate to the Liberty Association, and 
also to the General Association, and speak- 
ing with reference to the difficulty between 
Graves and yourself, he told me that it was 
a common talk at the Association, among 
the delegates there, that you had agreed 
with the Pedoes, for the consideration of th e 
sum of fifteen hundred dollars, paid to yo u 
bp Pedobaptists, to use all the influence yo a 
had against Graves, in order to ruin h ro 



*0 



TRIAL OP REV. J R. GRAVES 



standard as a preacher, and as a man of 
veracity. 

Dr. Howell remarked that lie had just 
received this letter, and had read the extract 
to show the character of reports that are put 
in circulation to injure his standing, and he 
would ask whether it was necessary for him, 
as the pastor of this church, to formally 
deny the charge that he had sold himself 
to the Pedobaptists for 81,500? That was 
all he had to say in regard to this report. 

Mr. Nelson moved that a copy of the 
preferred against Rev. J. R. Graves 
by S. M. Scott and himself be forwarded to 
Mr. Graves, as he understood a copy had 
not been sent him yet, and that he be noti- 
fied that they will be set for trial at the 
next regular meeting of this church, which 
will be Wednesday evening, the 10th of 
November. 

Mr. Scott said that before the cpiestion 
was taken upon this motion, he begged 
leave to withdraw the first specification in 
this count. t 

Leave was granted, and the first specifi- 
cation, as read, was withdrawn. 

And then 

The motion of Mr. Nelson was concurred 
in. 

Dr. Howell moved that when this meet- 
ing adjourns, it adjourn to meet at seven 
o'clock, Wednesday evening, the 10th of 
November, the time for the next regular 
meeting of the church. 

The motion was concurred in. 

And then, 

The meeting adjourned, with prayer by 
Dr. Howell. 



Wbdhksdat Evening, Nor. 10th, 1858. 

The Church met pursuant to adjourn- 
ment, and the session was opened with the 
reading of a portion of scripture by the 
Moderator, and prayer by Dr. Howell. 

The report of all the proceedings in this 



trial, from its commencement, as made by 
Mr. McKee, the gentleman employed for 
that purpose, was read, corrected, and 
adopted as the record of the church. 

The Moderator then stated that the bus- 
iness now before the Church was the fifth 
and last count in the charge which had 
been preferred against J. R. Graves, by 
brethren Scott and Nelson. 

The Clerk then read the charge as fol- 
lows : 

We, the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes- 
see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member 
of said church, and one of the editors of 
the Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral 
and unchristian conduct, in that he has 
uttered and published in his said paper 
the following wilful and deliberate false- 
hoods : 

1. "We can, with a clear conscience, 
appeal to the Jud^e of all the earth, that 
we have not intentionally injured any man, 
and if we have unwittingly done so, we 
truly regret it and are willing \q repair the 
injury." 

'1. "All that we could rightly do to ef- 
fect a reconciliation, though the offended 
and assailed party, we have done." 

3. 'It will be seen that both the lash 
and the law have been threatened against 
one or all the editors of this paper." 

4. "Reports have been put forth from 
this city and circulated in it, that the Sen- 
ior Editor of this paper was a vile charac- 
ter, a dishonest man, and that frightful 
revelations would be made of his standing 
at home when the church trial came off. 
(Note) Elder Howell made this charge be- 
fore he had been in the city nine months." 

5. "What frightful crimes are we charged 
with? The most stupendous one is the 
leaving off the D. D. from the name of R. 
B. C Howell in the Southern Baptist Reg- 
ister for 1858 !" 

0. "We are arraigned before the church 
for grossly immoral conduct and atrocious 
libel, &c., because we have left the D. D. 
off Elder Howell's name.' 

7. "One of the very prosecutors he 
[Howell] employs, C. A. Fuller, can threat- 
en to cowhide Elder Dayton, not only in 



TRIAL OF REV-. J. R. GRAVES. 



his office, but even in the hearing of the Brother Moderatbr and Brethren: — The 
whole church, and not so much as a re- ' specifications which we present, containing 
proof is offered him."' the falsehoods alleged in this count, are all 

8. -The other principal orator of the i taken from one and the same number of the 
21st September, [Dr. W. P. Jones,] is not { Tennessee Baptist. 

ouly known to Elder Howell as a teacher We, the undersigned, members of the 
ss heresy in his class — teaching views First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes- 
ealculated to overthrow one of the articles ; see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member 
of faith of the First Baptist Church, a fun- of said Church, and one of the editors of 
dameutal article of Christianity and reli- the Tennessee Baptist, with grossly iunuor- 
gion — but known also to Elder H. and the.al and unehristiau conduct, in that he has 
church, as the public defamerof Elder J. 'uttered and published in his said paper, the 
M. Pendleton; not onlv so, but he is per following wilful and malicious falsehood : 
mitted to defame Elder J. M. P. in the i 

mooting of the 21st. before Elder 1 specification first. 

II. s face, without receiving so much as a Tennessee Baptist, dated Oct. 9th, 18o8, 
reproof from Elder II " Mr. Graves says: "We can, with a clear 

0. '-Our readers will notice the closing conscience appeal to the judge of all the 
period of Mr. Fuller's article. [I defer earth, that we have not iutentioually injur- 
further remarks until a future opportunity, ed any man, and if we have unwittingly 
when A. C. Dayton shall have no occasion done so, we truly regret it, and are willing 
to say he has not reaped an ample reward to repair the injury." 

for the vituperation in which he has of We refer to the testimony on all the pre- 
late so freely indulged.] It is singular Ian- ' ceding counts, as proof that he has inten- 
guage for a Christian gentleman to use to- tionally injured this church, its pastor, aud 
wards a brother in the same church, aud a some of its members : and, to his rejection 
brother Mason. Such threats of brute of all appeals to him to retract and "repair 
violence, which have been twice repeated — the injury," that he does not truly regret, 
once to Brother Buchanan and once upon aud is not willing to repair the injury, 
the floor of the church, in church meeting, We refer sjKCjically for proof that Mr. 
reflect no credit upon either Mr. Fuller's Graves here asserts a wilful falsehood, to 
ry or his principles." the fact, that prior to this announcement 

S. M. Scott. by him, brethren Winston and Fuller had 
A. Xelson. explicitly stated in a note to Mr. Graves, 

that " we are authorized to savthat brother 



Howell will do whatever is demanded by 



The Moderator said that the Church had 
heard the allegations now read. If J. R. fa 
Graves were present he would call upon gentlemen,) That the plan may be definitely 
him to plead guilty or not guilty, but since settled at once, we [Winston and Fuller,] 
he was not present, the call would be prepos- ! offer the following basis of settlement. 
, tt i i i *-u Then followed a reciprocal proposition — 

terous. He asked whether anv one was au- , , ... \, . t, 1 t> n tt 

, . . ~ / that is — a proposition that R. B, G How- 

thonzed to plead for him. No one answer- 1 eU and j R Graves should mch withdraw, 

ed. The Moderator said, the Church will as publicly as they had made, all offensive 
now hear the prosecution upon this count charges against the other. 



in the charge against J. R. Graves. 

Mr. S. M. Scott asked leave to accompa- 
ny the evidence with a commentary. 

Dr. W. P. Jones suggested that it would 
be more in accordance with general usage 
to have the evidence presented first. 

The evidence was then read. 

Mr. Scott said : 



Could more noble or equitable proposi- 
tions have been made by mortal man ? 
Then too, brethren Winston and Fuller ac- 
companied these magnanimous propositions 
with an expression of their sincere desire to 
settle this difficulty. But, Mr. Graves, 
who thus solemnly "appeals to the judge 
'of all the earth;" who with so much pa- 
j rade pledges his willingness to repair any in- 
i jury, rejected these propositions! He not 



88 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVE? 



only refused to repair the injuries done his 
and brother by withdrawing his ac- 
cusations, but absolutely refused, or reject- 
ed all honorable or religious adjut 
whatever. For Elder Howell, as before 
stated, had in BO many words pro] 
do " ■whatever is demanded by honor or re- 
ligion." What more could your p 
eonld any christian gentleman propose? 
You >ce at once how utterly groundless and 
shamelessly false is Mr. I emn de- 

claration in so far as pertains to Elder R. 
B. C. Howell. 

Mr. Graves, in reference to a thing, about 
which he knew just nothing at all, virtual- 
ly charged J no. L. Waller with lying. 
Waller repeatedly and affectionately ad- 
dressed him private letters expecting to be 
set right before the readers of the Tennes- 
ptist. And finally, he wrote Mr. 
Graves, in these impressive words: "I 
have done all, that honor, friendship, or 
Christianity required me to do. * * 
* * * When I wrote to you as a 

friend and a christian, affirming solemnly 
what I had written to be true, iastead of 
correcting, or even alluding to my affirma- 
tion, you substantially restate your charge, 
and even aggravate it," etc. Thus is Mr. 
of the fudge 
of all the earth, proven to be a wilful false- 
tins to Jno. L. Waller. 

Many of you know that Mr. Graves 

1 the editor of the " 2?eto Orleans 

I a very rude, 

objectionable and reproachful manner. You 



ed, aud the responses have not been al- 
lowed." 

Thus by the testimony of Elder W. C. 
Duncan, is the assertion of Mr. Graves, 
though made under the solemnity of an 
oath, proven to be, a wilful and deliberate 
falsehood. 

Those of you who were readers of the 
Tennessee Baptist, cannot have forgotten 
the excitement which Mr. Graves, through 
anonymous communications succeeded in 
getting up, and for a great while maintain- 
ast the Walnut street Baptist Church 
iu Louisville, Ky. Elder W. W. Everts 
says: '-Mr. Graves admitted an anonymous 
article into his paper, seriously reflecting 
upon the Walnut street Baptist Church and 
pastor, and containing both palpable false- 
hoods and miscolorings. Dr. W. B. Cald- 
well wrote an answer in explanation and 
vindication of our church, which, as he did 
not wish his name brought before the pub- 
lic, I forwarded, authorizing the use of nay 
name as responsible for the article. Bui 
an anonymous, slanderous attack 
had been published, the endorsed vindica- 
tion was rejected as anonymous. Meantime 
another anonymous article was allowed to 
appear, reasserting the former slanders and 
sowing seeds of distrust and strife. Where- 
upon another brother (T. A. Reed) of this 
city, formerly a friend of Graves, wrote to 
Graves, remonstrating against the injustice 
doing to the Walnut street Baptist 
Church and pastor, by his anonymous and 
slanderous publications, and setting us 
know that Elder W. ('. Duncan charged right before the readers of the Tennessee 



Mr. Graves with many falsehoods, aud call- 
ed upon this church to listen to his allega- 
tions. You, however, gave no attention to 
these things until recently, and Mr. Graves 
atly refused to do justice or in any 
wi-e repair the injuries done this brother. 



Baptist. This letter was not allowed to 
appear. Still a third; aud I think a fourth 
slanderous article was allowed to appear 
anonymously, with, I believe, new editori- 
als, and enforcements, &c, &c. Brother 
Reed, after waiting for the appearance of 



. __ , „,_, -ri 

Mr. Duncan says he " has several times ; his first communication, sent a second, and 
proposed arbitration of the points at issue | after waiting a considerable time for the 



between him and the editor of the Baptist, 
but these proposals were treated with si- 
lence or rejection. He [Duncan] has ask- 
ed repeatedly to be allowed a defence in 
the columns of the Tennessee Baptist, and 
has as often been refused. He has written 
private letters requesting that these re- 
peated acts of hostility should cease, or 
that responses should be allowed in the 
Baptist, but, the attacks have not ceas- 



appearauce of that, wrote a third. Wheth- 
er he was discouraged from forwarding the 
third, from what seemed a persistent pur- 
pose to withhold justice, I know not. But 
some time later, Win. Garuett, iu the Wes- 
tern Recorder, in a short article challenged 
the name of the writer of these calumni- 
ous articles, and pledged himself to prove 
five palpable falsehoods in thern as well as 
gross miscolorings if a responsible name 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



89 



..iveu. All this passed, but no jus- 
aa ever done to us by the Tennessee 
Baptist, or apology offered. - ' 

Thus is Mr. Graves proven, not ouly 
guilty v( publishing wilful and deliberate 
falsehoods in reference to the church and 
brethren in Louisville, and to their serious 
injury, but also of persistently refusing to 
repair the injuries done; and thus, too, his 
D in the name of the judge of all 
the earth, is proven a twofold falsehood, 
wilfullj and deliberately uttered and pub- 
lished. 

These are but specimens of many simi- 

imoniea iu our possession, aud which 

we are prepared to present, but deem it un- 

- in the mouth of two or three 

witnesses, every word is established. 

SPECIFICATION SECOND. 

Mr. Graves says: "All that we could 
rightly do to effect a reconciliation, though 
the offended and assailed party, we have 
done." 

He well knows that he has rejected all 
overtures of every character which have 
been made to him, and all appeals to con- 
sent to a reconciliation, although assured in 
writing that the party referred to would do 
/ demanded by honor or religion. 
All must see. therefore, and know thatthis 
too, is a wilful violation of truth — a delib- 
erate falsehood. 

Mr. Graves, or any other man of honor 
or religion, or even destitute of both, could 
rightly accept or make some proposition 
for reconciliation, within the pale of honor 
or religion. 

We ask, whether in the annals of the hu- 
man race, such a proposition as was made 
by Elder Howell, was ever before rejected 
by an}- one professing to be a christian 
gentleman ? 

SPECIFICATION THIRD. 

" It will be seen," says Mr. Graves, "that 
both the lash and the law have been threat- 
ened against one or all the editors of this 
paper." 

This is said of Chas. A. Fuller's speech 
in the church meeting on the night of the 
21st of September last. A large number 
of brethren and sisters were present at that 
meeting, and know the statement to be false, 
but with the view of eliciting positive 



proof upon these points, we have to re- 
quest that you. brother Moderator, will 
call upon all the brethren aud sisters here, 
who were present at the meeting referred 
to by Mr. Graves to rise: and while they 
I stand that you will ascertain the number; 
then put the question: "Those, who heard 
C. A. Fuller or any one, threaten any one 
or all the editors of the Tennessee Baptist 
with the law or the lash, will please rise," 
aud note the number, if any. Then put the 
question, those who neither heard such re- 
marks, nor believe that any such were made, 
will rise — note also the number. 

Mr. Fuller said it was important to as- 
certain how many were here to-night of 
those who were present at that meeting on 
the 21st of September, as he wished them 
to express an opiniun as to the truth or 
falsity of the assertion of Mr. Graves, as 
to what he (Fuller) had said. 

Dr. W P. Jones suggested that those 
present at the meeting on the 21st of Sep- 
tember, be requested to rise, and after the 
number has been ascertained, that they be 
seated and then give the desired expression 
by rising. 

The Moderator then requested all pres- 
ent who were at the meeting held on the 
21st of September, to rise. 

L T pon a count, it was ascertained that 
there were sixty-one present who had at- 
tended that meeting. All resumed their 
seats. 

The Moderator. Those who were pres- 
ent at the meeting on the 21st of Septem- 
ber, and who know the statement of Mr. 
Graves, which has just been read, to be 
true, will rise. 

Xone rose. 

The Moderator. Those who were present 
at the meeting on the 21st of September, 
and who know that Mr. Fuller did not 
make the threats, as charged by Mr. Graves, 
will rise. 

Upon a count it was ascertained that 
fifty-six were standing. 

Mr. Scott resumed: 



90 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRA.VES. 



I have thus, brother Moderator, estab- 
lished the third specification by fifty-sis 
witnesses, whose testimony not one arose 
to question. There can he no doubt of 
the fact that Mr. Graves is guilty under 
this >pe;ification of wilful and deliberate 
falsehood. I now proceed to 

SPECIFICATION FOURTH. 

Mr. I 3: "Reports have been 

put forth from this city, and circulated in 
it. that the Senior Editor of this paper 
was a vile character, a dishonest man, and 
that frightful revelations would be made of 
oding at home, when the church 
trial came off." In a note he makes the 
first part of this apply to our pastor. He 
says: "Elder Howell made this charge be- 
fore he had been in the city nine m 
We are authorized to Bay that "Elder 
Howell" denies this charge, and demands 
proof from disinterested witnesses. In the 
ce of such proof it is a falsehood. 

Dr. Howell asked that an extract from a 
letter from one of the deacons of the Free- 
mason street Baptist Church, Norfolk, Ya., 
of which church A. B. Hendren, a volun- 
tary assailant, professes to be a member, 
should be read, and appended to, and mace 
a part of the testimony under this specifi- 
cation. Mr. Scott acquiesced. Dr. Howell 
said : 

Before reading the extract he be_ 
state, that he had known Mr. Hendren in 
his early life. He had been intimately ac- 
quainted with his family, aud relatives, who 
were excellent people, aud most of them 
members of the church in Norfolk, of 
which he, in his youth, was pastor; which 
say from the beginning of 1827, to 
near the close of lsb'4. "When this 31 r. 
Hendren came to this city some months 
since, he received him warmly, interested 
himself in his behalf, and did all he could 
to procure business for him in his employ- 
ment of a house-builder. He had to this 
end taken special pains favorably to repre- 
sent him to his friends. He regretted even 
now, to say one word in disparagement of 
him. and would not do so, were he not 
compelled. The extraordinary publication 
of Mr. Hendren had left him no alterna- 
tive. He must either be silent, and allow 



that gentleman to fix his malicious imputa- 
tion upon him, or he must defend himself 
by showing from unquestionable sources, 
to what reliance Mr. Hendren is entitled. 
He did this with the sineerest reluctance. 
If Mr. Hendren suffered from the exposure 
he had compelled him to make, he had to 
thank only himself, and his unscrupulous 
friend, 31 r. Graves. 

The extract is as follows : 

"I have always regarded A. B. Hen- 
dren, and so I think have all who know 
him well, as an exceedingly excitable, im- 
pulsive, indiscreet man, too ready to catch 
at any thing before understanding it, and 
likely, beyond almost any one I ever knew, 
to speak and act unadvisedly. In such an 
issue as that you mention, between him 
and Dr. Howell, there cannot be two opin- 
ions among those who know the parties. — 
You cannot find here a man who has any 
confidence in Hendren." 

3Ir. 31. B. Howell explained that this 
letter was in reply to a letter from himself 
to that gentleman. He had understood 
that he knew something of the character 
of Hendren, and ho had written to him re- 
questing a statement of the facts within 
his knowledge, and had received the reply 
from which the extract had been read. 

[From another letter since received, from 
the same gentleman, the following is 
taken : — 

"I saw in the last Tennessee Baptist, a 
communication from A. B. Hendren, in 
which he attempts to charge you with 
falsehood. It is preposterous to suppose 
that any thing he could say should injure 
you. He was notorious here for the viola- 
tion of his business engagements, and dis- 
regard of his word, to such an extent that 
no one I have ever heard speak of him, 
has the slightest confidence in him." "His 
whole course here was wayward, and vas- 
eillating, and his general character in this 
commuuity was very far from being that of 
a mau of unimpeacliabJe veracity." 

This is the testimony of an officer of the 
church of which 3Ir. A. B. Hendren was 
a member, in Norfolk, Virginia. It will 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



91 



be sufficient, perhaps, to add the fol- 
lowing : — 

Fkef.mason Streft Baptist CnrEcn, [ 
Norfolk, Ya., April 15th, IS" 

At a meeting held this date, a letter was 
presented from Mr. Andrew B. Hendren, 
and read, asking for a letter of dismission 
from this church, to join the Baptist church 
at Nashville, Tenn. 

Upon statements made by brethren J. 
Hardy Hendren, and Charles H. Langly, 
relative to conduct of brother Andrew B. 
Hendren, while in Salisbury, North Caro- 
lina, which they learned from good author- 
..ave been of such a character as to 
justify his expulsion from this church. 

On motion, brother Andrew B. Hendren 
was expelled. 

(A true copy of the proceedings.) 
Joux White, 
Church Clerk. 

State of Virginia, City of Norfolk. 
This dav personally appeared before me, 
W. A. C.Ellis, a Notary Public for the 
city and State aforesaid. [John White] and 
acknowledged the above writing to be his 
act. Given under mv hand and seal, this 
the 29th day of November, 1S5S. 

Wm. A. C. Ellis, 

Notary Public] 

Dr. Howell thought it necessary to say so 
much in regard to the credibility of the 
gentleman whose certificate Mr. Graves 
thought proper to foist into these proceedings 
on the first night of this trial. The church 
now knows what weight they ought to 
attach to the volunteered statement of Mr. 
Andrew B. Hendren. He repeated that 
he regretted to present these facts, on ac- 
count of the paia they will give the family 
and friends of Mr. Hendren, whom he 
highly esteemed, but he was compelled to do 
so, in self-defence. 

Mr. Scott resumed: 

I proceed to 

SPECIFICATION FIETH. 

Mr. Gmves says: — What frightful crimes 
are we charged with. The most stupendous 
one is the leaving off the D. D. from the 



! name of R. B. C Howell in the Southern 
Baptist Register for 181 1 ." 

The charge against Mr Graves had been 
in his hands when he wrote the abov 
eral weeks, and he knew that it contained 
no such charge. The charge is as follows: 

'•We the undersigned, members of the 
First Baptist church, Nashville, Tennessee, 
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of 
said church, and one of the editors of the 
Tennessee Baptist with grossly immoral 
and unchristian conduct, in four distinct 
cases, as follows : 

in that he has sought to bring 
upon R. B. C Howell, the pastor of said 
church, reproach and injury, and thus to 
his character and influence in the 
Southwest, by forcing him into collision 
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late eorrespond- 

g 3 rotary of the Bible Board, and now 
one of his associate editors, through the 
publication in his said paper of various false 
and malicious representations. 

idly, in that he has endeavored to 
distract and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor and four of 
ils deacons, and several others of its influ- 
ential members, which he has labored to 
produce by numerous inflammatory articles, 
published in his paper. 

Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub- 
lished in his said paper against R. B. C. 
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry 
foul and atrocious libels. 

Fourthly, in that he has at various times 
attacked, slandered, and abused ministers 
and brethren of high character, belonging 
to our denomination throughout the coun- 
try, in his said paper. Signed, 

J. C Daedex, 
C. A. Feller. 

Mr. Graves endeavors to excuse him- 
self by an allusion to the Southern Baptist 
Register, in which he says the D. D. was 
left off Elder Howell's name. But the 
Southern Baptist Register is alluded to 
only once in the specifications, and then 
under the first count, which charges Mr. 
Graves with endeavoring to force Dr. 
Howell into collision with A. C. Dayton. 
Leaving the D. D. off Dr. Howell's name 
could have no influence in forcing him into 
collision with A. C. Dayton. Xor is it 
possible that Mr. Graves should suppose it 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



would have that effect. How then could 
he say that one of the most stupendous 
crimes with which he is charged, is leaving 
the D. D. off R. B. C. Howell's name? 
No Buch charge is made, nor could Mr. 
Graves have supposed that such a charge 
was brought against him. It was a wilful 
and deliberate falsehood, uttered and pub- 
li shod without so much as the semblance of 
truth. 

SPECIFICATION SIXTH. 

Mr. (! raves says: "We are arraigned 
before the church for grossly immoral con- 
duct, and atrocious libel, &c, because we 
have left the D. D. off Elder Howell's 
name." 

The church knows that this is false, and 
you all remember that Mr. Graves admit- 
fore the large concourse of people 
assembled in this house, in the beginning 
of this trial, that when he wrote this sen- 
tence he had the charges (as just read) in 
his poss< ssion. 

He therefore knowingly and deliberately, 
with the truth before his eyes, preferred ' 
the falsehood. He deliberately penned, ! 
printed, published and circulated to thou- 
sands of readers, a falsehood in preference 
to the truth. This assertion like the fore-' 
going, is utterly destitute of so much as; 
the shadow of truth, and Mr. Graves 
knew it. 

SPECIFICATION SEVENTH. 

Mr. Graves says: '-One of the very 
itors he [Howe!!] employs. ('. A. 
Fuller, can threaten to cowhide Elder 
.Dayton, not only iu his office, but even in 
the hearing of the whole church, and not ! 
so much as a reproof is offered him." 

"The whole church" present at the time 
referred to by Mr. Graves in this specifica- 
tion, heard doubtless every word that C. A. 
Fuller said, and well know that he said no 
such thing. 

But that truth may be doubly vindicated, 
and unblushing falsehood exposed, we ask 
again, Bro. Moderator, that you will request 
all the brethren and sisters who were pres- 
ent on the occasion referred to, and who 
understood Mr. Fuller to threaten to cow- 
hide Elder Dayton, to rise? 

Then ask, if you please, all who" know 
that Mr. Fuller did not so threaten Mr. ' 
Dayton, to rise. 



The Moderator: All who were present 
at the meeting on the 21st of September, 
and know that Mr. Fuller threatened to 
cowhide Elder Dayton, as charged by the 
Rev. J. R. Graves, will rise. 

None rose. 

The Moderator: All those who were 
present at that meeting, and know that Mr. 
Fuller did not threaten to cowhide Elder 
Dayton, as charged by Mr. Graves, will 
rise. 

Upon a count it was ascertained that 
fifty-six were standiug. 

Mr. Scott resumed : 

This specification, also, brother Modcra- 
tor, is sustained by the testimony of fifty- 
six unimpeachable witnesses. The allega- 
tion of Mr. Graves is proved to be a bold 
and unblushing falsehood. I proceed : 

SPECIFICATION EKiHT. 

Mr. Graves says : "The principal orator 
of the 21st .September, [Dr. W. F. Jones,] 
is not only kuown to Elder Howell, as a 
teacher of gross heresy in his class, teach- 
in g views calculated to overthrow one of 
the articles of faith of the First Baptist 
church, a fundamental article of Christian- 
ity and religion — but known also to Elder 
II. and the church, as the public defamer 
of Elder J. M. Pendleton; not only- so, but 
he is permitted to defame Elder J. M. P. 
in the church- meeting of the 21st, before 
Elder H.'s face, without receiving so much 
as a reproof from Elder H. 

"Elder Howell," we arc authorized to 
say, knows nothing of Dr. Jones' heresies 
in the case charged, except through the 
statement of Mr. Graves, upon whose 
veracity he has learned not to rely. 

"Elder Howell" and the church do not 
know Dr. Jones as the public defamer of 
Elder J. M. Pendleton. 

Elder Howell was not Moderator of the 
tueeting of the 21st September, and theie- 
fore, even if Dr. Jones had then and there 
defamed Elder J. M. P., was not in a posi- 
tion to admiuister a reproof. The whole 
statement is a falsification. 

SPECIFICATION NINTn. 

In an article published by C. A. Fuller, 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



93 



Mused, in the cl ising sentence, the follow- 
further remarks until a futire 

inity, when A. C. Dayton shall have 
to say he has not reaped an 
ample reward for the vituperation in which 
he has of late so freely indulged." Upon this 
sentence Mr. Graves says: "Our readers 
will u< tice th _ ] eriod of Mr. Ful- 

ticle. It is singular language for a 

n gentleman to use towards a broth- 
er in th ■ same church, and a brother Ma- 
son. Such threats of brute violence, which 

•n twice repeated — once to brother 
Buchanan, and once upon the floor of the 
church, in church meeting, reflect no cred- 

r upon Mr. Fuller's bravery or his 

deferring further remarks to a fu- 
ture opportunity constitute a threat of 
brute violence? Mr. Fuller made no such 
threat, and it must be evident to every 
• of the church, upon the bare read- 
ing of this language of C. A. Fuller, that 
it contains no threat of brute violence. 
The statement of Mr. Graves is. therefore, 
plainly . 

Many other specifications might be pre- 
sented, but these are sufficient. It is un- 
oable that Mr. Graves is guilty of 
falsehood as charged against him. 

The Moderator: Are there any remarks 
to be offered in defence ? If not, we shall 
proceed to put the question to the Church. 

The Moderator: Those members who be- 
lieve that the charge of falsehood against 
the Rev. J. R. Graves has been sustained 
by the evidence adduced, will rise. 

Upon a count, it was ascertained that 
seventy-nine were standing. 

The Moderator: Those members who be- 
lieve that the charge of falsehood against 
the Rev. J. R. Graves has not been sus- 
tained by the evidence, will rise. 

Xone rose. 

The Moderator then declared that the 
Church had unanimously decided that the 
charge of falsehood against the Rev. J. R. 
Graves had been sustained by the evidence. 

Mr. Fuller said it seemed from the evi- 
dence submitted to the Church and the de- 



cisions arrived at so far, that there could 
not be a doubt as to the guilt of the accus- 
ed, that he had been found guilty upon 
every count, aud as to the duty of the 
Church in the premises, there could be no 
question. The Church should put upon 
the accused the highest seal of its condem- 
nation. He was satisfied the Church had act- 
ed throughout this trial, with a firm determi- 
nation to do justice, let the consequences 
be what they may, and with that action he 
should be satisfied. 

Mr. Fuller moved that 
Whereas, Each church is the divinely 
d guardian of the morals of its 
members; and, whereas, Rev. J. R. Graves 
n an impartial trial, been found 
guilty of grossly immoral and unchristian 
ict : 
. in that he has sought to bring 
:. I). C. Howell, the Pastor of said 
church, reproach and injury, aud thus to 
his character and influence in the 
Southwest; by forcing him into collision 
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Correspond- 
ing St ;retary of the Bible Board, and now 
| one of his associate editors, through the 
: publication in his said paper of various false 
' and malicious representations. 

dly, in that he has endeavored to 
distract and divide said church, by means 
of a conflict between its pastor and four of 
its deacons, and several others of its influ- 
ential members, which he has labored to 
produce b}- various inflammatory articles, 
published in his paper. # 

TJtirdly, in that he has uttered and pub- 
lished in his said paper against R. B. C. 
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry 
foul and atrocious libels. 

Ft ./ tidy, in that he has, at various times, 
attached, slandered and abused ministers 
and brethren of high character, belonging 
to our denomination, throughout the coun- 
try, in his said paper. 

\y, in uttering and publishing nine 
wilful and deliberate falsehoods, specified 
in the foregoing proceedings : 

Therefore, Resolved, That the Rev. J. 
R. Graves be formally excluded from fellow- 
ship in this Church. 

The Moderator stated that the question 



94 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



under the motion just submitted, was 
open for discussion, and any one having re- 
marks to make would now be heard. 

Mr. S. A. Davidson said he had on a 
former occasion expressed a desire to make 
some remarks upon the points involved in 
this trial. lie had a motive in view then, 
which does not hold now, and, consequent- 
ly, he had but little to say. He stated that 
he had sympathized with the minority at 
first, and disapproved of the action of the 
Church in this matter, because he believed 
it was a persona! quarrel, that ought to have 
been settled privately. He also disapprov- 
ed of the course of the minority, because 
he feared it would result in injury to the 
Baptist Church. The object he had in de 
siring to address the Church, was to see if 
something could not be done to avert the 
I tences which were likely to result 
from the action of the Church on this mat- 
ter. But, alas, it was now too late to effect 
what he had desired — the harmony and the 
welfare of the Church. He believed that 
i fixed fact that Mr. Graves was to 
lied, and it would, therefore, be 
folly to say anything in the hope of avert- 
ing this result. 

Dr. W. P. Jones thought the brother 
was not iu order. 

The Moderator decided that Mr. David- 
son was in-order. 

Ms. Davidson, resuming, said that from 
the evidence adduced on the trial and the 
protest of Mr. Graves, he learned that the 
difficulty between Dr. Howell and Mr. 
Graves had its origin in misunderstanding 
each other. Dr. Howell had opposed the 
roposition in the Convention here last 
year for the establishment of a Sunday 
School Board of Publication, and he had 
I it in an able manner, as he always 
docs oppose or advocate a measure, and 
Mr. Graves had defended that proposition, 
and he thought neither had done wrong in 
this respect, and his opinion was that this 



difference in regard to the policy of estab- 
lishing a Sunday School Board of Publica- 
tion, was not a matter for Church discip- 
line. Both claimed to have been the as- 
sailed party, and either had a right to de- 
mand a personal explanation. Dr. Howell's 
" Index Letter," as it is called, was regard- 
ed as an assault upon Mr. Graves, but Mr. 
Graves did not proceed in regard to what 
he complained of in this respect, accord- 
ing to the 18th of Matthew, but assailed 
Dr. Howell in return, and thus widened 
the breach. 

Mr. Davidson said that in cases like this, 
he thought the one that complained ought 
to have sought a private interview, in the 
hope of bringing about a proper adjust- 
zueut, and he thought Dr. Howell was the 
one to have made this advance. In regard 
to the proposition that had been made for 
a settlement of the difficulty, he was not 
prepared to give it his sanction. For a 
man to take back what he had said was not 
always the best mode of settling difficul- 
ties between christians, and, therefore, he 
thought the demand should not have been 
made. "When a difficulty occurs between 
politicians and editors, and the matter is 
referred to friends, if a retraction is de- 
manded and refused, a duel is the conse- 
quence. To make a statement and then 
take it back, cai-ries with such a course a 
species of degradation, because the state- 
ment was made upon what the author re- 
garded as reliable authority. He had, 
therefore, objected to Dr. Howell's propo- 
sition, and this was the reason he wished to 
address a few remarks to the Church. 
Christians should have a better way of set- 
tling difficulties than this. They can for- 
give one another, according to the gospel, 
whose teachings they professed to follow. 
If was God-like to forgive, and it was in 
this spirit he had desired to appeal to the 
Church, but alas, it was now too late. 
In regard to the specifications in the 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



65 



charges, Mr. Davidson thought there might 

as well have been ten thousand as ten, as 
they were all a good deal alike, and when 
■1 of everything of a personal and 
exciting nature, they were not of so seri- 
ous a character that a satisfactory adjust- 
ment might not have been had without an 
appeal to the Church. Neither Dr. Howell 
nor Mr. Graves will outlive the evil con- 
sequences to the Baptist Church of this 
trial. 

He deeply regretted the action of the 
Church. Mr. Graves' friends do not be- 
lieve the charges, and will treat the decis- 
ion of the Church with contempt. 

Dr. Howell said : 

Brother Moderator : I did not intend to 
have spoken again in the progress of this 
trial. I desire, however, to say a few 
words, and they shall be as few as possible, 
in answer to brother Davidson. lie will 
allo\i me to assure him in advance, that 
every remark I may think it 103' duty to 
make, shall be uttered in christian courte- 
sy, and with that sincere personal regard 
that I have so many reasons to cherish. I 
have known him for many years. I have 
known his father from my youth. Two of 
his brothers were fellow students with me 
in college. They both became ministers, 
and I loved them sincerely. I am under 
special obligations te him for kind atten- 
tions shown me in years past, in hours of 
disease and intense suffering. In the course 
he has thought himself obliged to pursue 
in regard to this trial, I believe him to be 
actuated by pure motives, and a sense of 
obligation to the cause of Christ. I cannot, 
therefore, speak of him, but in terms of 
unaffected respect. He has, however, 
greatly mistaken both the fads in the case, 
and the teachings in regard to them of the 
word of God. Of this I cannot but hope 
he will himself be convinced when they 
are properly before him. But, however 
this may be, he and you will, I trust, hear 
me candidly and patiently. 

Brother Davidson tells you, brother Mode- 
rator, that he "Disapproved the action of 
the church in this matter." . VThy he did 
so he has distinctly stated. I am glad that 



he has, since we can now examine his rea- 
sons dispassionately, and show him, and 
others who have entertained similar im- 
pressions, that they are wholly without 
foundation. lie believed the whole dis- 
turbance, as he says. "A private quarrel 
; which ought to have been settled privately," 
I and that, therefore, the church, when the 
charge was preferred originally by breth- 
ren Darden and Fuller, and subsequently 
additionally, by brethren Scott and Nelson, 
ought not to have entertained it ; and hav- 
ing entertained it erroneously, he believed 
that yon ought, when the motion was made, 
to have remanded it, that is, dismissed it, 
on account of its informality. This is the 
ground taken, as you know, by the Tennes- 
see Baptist, the conductors of which then 
had brother Davidson's ear. He has not 
read that paper, he tells us. I do not 
question the statement. I only know he 
uses its thoughts and language. Nor has 
his conversation been with those who 
would be likely to correct his erroneous im- 
pressions. An article appears on the first 
page of the "Baptist Standard" of this 
week, proving that the facts are all pre- 
cisely the opposite of what brother David- 
son supposes. Every word of that article 
I endorse, and wish it to be considered, and 
recorded, as my answer to his speech. 

[A large portion of what follows in this 
address, is a reproduction, subsequently 
written out, of the substance of that arti- 
cle. It is not recollected that any new 
thought is introduced, but some parts of 
it are, for convenience and applicability, 
abridged severely, and others are carefully 
elaborated.] 

The developments which have been made 
in the progress of this trial, show as con- 
clusively as that two and two make four, 
that Mr. Graves' offences with which he is 
charged before the church, are not private, 
but public, and in the most full and em- 
phatic sense. This being unquestionably 
true, if is certain not only that the church 
acted correctly both in entertaining the 
charge, and refusing to remand, or dismiss 
it, but also that it could not have acted 
otherwise than as it did, without sinning 
against God and the brethren. TVe dared 
not longer foster in its bosom, this man, 
unrebuked. The voice of God is continu- 
ally ringing in our ears, " Put away from 



90 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



» you that wicked person." Our 
from all quarter* — Kentucky, Mis- 
souri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina — are 
, us for defence against his 
ults. They 
could not reach Mr. Graves but through 
our action. The a^gis of our protection 
has, up to this time, been over him. His 
public shame was settling down - 
Tor all this either I 

In either case a man of 
any christian feeling, should have demand- 
ir action. That on the contrary 
Mr. Graves violently, desperately, 
it. is proof positive of his deep L r uilt. of 
which he well knew, should a fair trial be 
permitted, he must be convicted. Under 
w could we longer 
remain silent, without betrayal, nay more, 
without an abandonment of the c 
Christ, which we are all solemnly pledged 
to love, honor, anil defeed. 

Brother Davidson did, at first, he tells 

ympathize with the minority," that 

is, with Mr. Graves, and his faction. His 

thy with them has now ceased. Nor 

is he alone in this feeling. Notafei 

I ild mention, who voted 
to remand the case, are with brother Dj 
vidson in f i re now 

heartily with the church, and fully prepar- 
ed to acquiesce in its decision. They 
know that Mr. Graves, by his friend, an- 
i in your preliminary proceedings, 
his pur. ad, and defend himself 

against this charge. They were present 

v that although he indul 
great violence, he made no schismatic 
movement until after a very ■' 

■■h, which plainly indicated that he 
could not so control its action as to make 
it subservient to his purposes. Then it 
. i*not till then, that Mr. Graves and 
his parti up for tbern- 

Brother Davidson was also a wit- 
■ ) those midnight proceedings, of 
which, until then, we did not suppose any 
r of this church, not even Graves 
himself ad which were not only 

;. but actually headed and carried i 
forward, by men from abroad, who had ( 
been brought here for the purpose. R. G. 
Kimbrongh was the chairman of that fac-i 
tious assemblage, and among its chief. 



speakers, who blew the fires of discord, 
were such as Grimmctt, and Pendleton, 
and Stevenson, and Clement. These men 
had thrust themselves, uninvited, into our 
sanctuary, to aid this faction in our 
disorganization, and what they doubtless 
hoped would ba our destruction. The 
deed, and the hour, were worthy of each 
other. " Every one that doeth evil, hateth 
the light, neither cometh to the light lest 
Is should be reproved." Upon such 
as that the sun should never shine. 
Then and there they "crucified the Son of 
God afresh, and put him to an open shame." 
Forty-one voted to remand the charge, and 
among them brother Davidson. Mr. Graves 
recorded carefully the names of them all, 
claimed them as belonging to him, and so 
! to the General Association. Some 
of them resisted — brother Davidson for 
instance. They did not consider that 
because they voted to remand the case, they 
wore therefore, as a matter of course, obliged 
to join his faction. All this brother David- 
son saw. He was satisfied. His sympathies 
were at an end. I am pleased to hear from 
his own lips, that he does not approve* the 
schism perpetrated on that night, and that 
he remains in his place, unmoved as a mem- 
ber of this church. These remarks, by the 
way. We proceed to examine more especial- 
ly the r< jned by brother David- 
son, why he supposed, as he tells us, that 
we ought not to have entertained the 
charge, and that when the motion was made, 
it ought to have been remanded. Ii 

\j -cause he believed it " 
quarrel, and that it ought to have been set- 
tled privately." 

Others fell into the same error with 
brother Davidson, and doubtless through 
the same means, the false representations 
of the Tennessee Baptist and its advocates, 
who labored from week to week, to make this 
n upon the public mind. Not a few 
other honest and excellent brethren, be- 
lieved at first, these representations, because 
they supposed that Mr. Graves would not 
falsify the facts, as they must now see that 
he has done. The several counts, specifi- 
cations, and proofs that sustain the charge, 
are before them. Do they still believe that 
all this affair is " ^.personal quarrel" b 
J. R. Graves and his pastor, that ought to 
n f or that possibly could have been 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



97 



settled privately f Is it necessary now to 
review this whole ease, to prove what in 
its progress, has so often and so clearly been 
demonstrated, that the offences for which 
Mr. Graves has been tried, of which he 
has in every case been found guilty, and for 
which the motion now pending is, that he 
shall be expelled from membership in this 
church, were all public, and most flagrant? 
The first charges him with "sowing discord 
among brethren," in which he was disas- 
trously successful. The second count 
charges him with schism, or division of the 
church, and in this also he has painfully suc- 
ceeded. The third, that he has uttered and 
published numerous libels upon his pastor ; 
the fourth, that he has attacked, abused 
and slandered brethren abroad, as -well 
as at home ; and the fifth, that he has 
uttered and published various known and 
deliberate falsehoods. All these, together, 
now established by full, and indubitable 
testimony, place the fact beyond question, 
that J. R. Graves is guilty as charged, of 
" Grossly immoral and unchristian conduct." 
And call you these offences, of which you 
have found this man guilty, "a private 
quarrel?" Was it all a private quarrel ? 
Surely no one can believe it was. "Was any 
part of it a private quarrel ? If so, what 
part of it? The discord sown among breth- 
ren, to break down and destroy his pastor; 
was this private? Was the division of the 
church, by means of a conflict between 
eight or ten of its members private ? "Were 
his defamations of brethren throughout the 
country, from Baltimore to Xew Orleans, 
private? Were his published libels private? 
Were his written and published falsehoods 
private ? Did all these together constitute 
"a private quarrel" between your pastor 
and J. R. Graves ? We do not think so. 
This church has by vote declared that it 
does not think so. Does brother Davidson 
still think so? It seems tome impossible. 

But I was involved in the matter by 
name, and therefore my brother thinks it 
must have been private. But the Modera- 
tor, too, was involved in it by name, and 
so were brethren J. D. Winston, and Fuller, 
and Jones, and Darden, and Scott, and Xel- 
son, and Bang, and many others at home, and 
Fuller, and Tustin, and Everts, and Dun- 
can, and Dawson, and others abroad. Was 
it a private quarrel with each one of us, 
7 



and of them f If so, pray tell me what 
constitutes a public quarrel? Can there be 
such a thing ? It would seem not, accord- 
ing to brother Davidson. Personally I was 
no mere involved than were others. I am 
your pastor. That is all. And without 
doubt that is my great offence, and I believe 
it is my only offence against J. R. Graves. If 
I had not assumed this relation to you, he 
never would have imagined that I was an 
offender. In this remark I speak advisedly. 
This fact, however, certainly gives me a 
just claim to your protection. The fair 
standing, and usefulness of a pastor, are 
certainly the property of the church of 
which he is the servant. Any attempt, 
therefore, by whomsoever made, privatelv 
or publicly, to embroil the pastor with his 
brethren, or to curtail or lessen his influ- 
ence, or his usefulness, or to draw contempt 
upon him, and thereby hinder the spread of 
the gospel, and retard the progress of the 
Redeemer's Kingdom, is an offence against 
God, his church, and his people. Your 
pastor, when Mr. Graves had committed 
these, and many other like sins, did not 
consider them a "private quarrel." He, 
therefore, did not treat them as such. He 
did not go to him privately, nor did he 
charge Mr. Graves before you. To you, to 
the church collectively, the whole case be- 
longed, and four of your ov:n number pre- 
ferred the charge. Suppose 1 had gone to 
Mr. Graves privately, and he had confessed 
to me his fault, and asked my forgiveness. 
As to me personally , provided he had made 
his retraction as public as had been his as- 
saults, that might have been satisfactory- 
But would that have atoned for his offences 
against the church as such ; for his offences 
against many others of its members; for his 
offences against brethren throughout the 
country; for his offences against truth, and 
honor, and religion ? Surely not. 

To another consideration I will call broth- 
er Davidson's attention. He knows, I pre- 
sume, that upon even a strictly private of- 
fence, the church is obliged to act, should it 
come to its knowledge, and this too, irrespec- 
tive of the manner in which that know- 
ledge was obtained. So teaches Mr. Graves' 
own authority, Rev. Dr. J. S. Baker, He 
says, Periodical Library, Vol. 1, Xo. -1, p. 
262, etseq. 1847 : 

" The opinion prevails [in some quar- 



98 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



tersl that a violation of the rule [in she is not chargeable with them; .but -the 
Matt 181 by the aggrieved, in bring- moment she is made acquainted with them, 
b" an "offender before the church be- if she fails to adopt measures for calling the 
fore he has pursued the prescribed course, ' offenders to account, and for preventing the 
relieves the church from the obligation occurrence of like offences in the future, 
("otherwise existing] to deal with the indi- ] she virtually sanctions those offences, bids 
vidual thus arraia-ued before them, [that in the offenders God speed, becomes a par- 
luXacase, she must remand the charge taker of their evi deeds and renders her- 
for imformality, and refuse to hear it ] self amenable both i to God and mem See 
Were the effects of personal difficulties," j Psalms 50: 18, 1 Tim. 5:22, 2 John 11. 
continues Dr. Baker, « confined to the par- 1 This church, therefore, pursued the true 
ties more immediately implicated, such an scriptural course even had the offences 
opinion might be maintained with some de- been private, as I said The knowledge 
See of plausibility ; but it should be re- of them had now reached her, and she was 
memberedthat every offence committed by obliged either to act, or to sanction Mr 
one individual against another, is an offence Graves' crimes, and become a partaker of 
cXmtaed a,an,t the whole body, and his evil deeds And since his .offence. -were 
aeainst the cause for the furtherance of not private but as Mr. Pendleton, his co- 
which that body was incorporated. While, editor and blind partisan declared a few 
therefore, the irregularity in the course days since, on the floor of the Genera As- 
pursued by the person aggrieved, might sociation at Lebanon, they were "attpublic 
subiect him to censure," "should the how much more imperatively was the church 
church [because of this irregularity] neg- ] called upon to entertain the charge, and pro- 
ject Tor refuse] to act upon the case, it is ceed with the trial. It did this, and you 
certam that such neglect [or refusal] could followed the law strictly. The correctness 
not fail to afford just cause of complaint of our proceedings in these respects, never 
to others." How then, if this be a just can, with the facts before them, be ques- 
view of the law in the case, could, this tioned by any ; they never will be question- 
church have refused to entertain this ed, by any intelligent Baptist, well read in 
charge aeainst Mr. Graves; how could she Ecclesiastical Polity. 

have reminded it, even had it been pri- We now turn to another considera- 
vateasMr Graves claims, and as brother tion. Brother Davidson refers in what he has 
Davidson supposed it to have been, without just said, to my correspondence with Mr. 
a direct violation of the word of God ? You Graves, andtellsyoutbatheis»aVo<prepa«rf 
were obliged, Mr. Graves' own witness be- to p4ve it his sanction." He has also seen 
■in- judge, to entertain the charge, and to Mr. Graves' correspondence with Doctors 
refuse to^mand it. Jeter, Campbell, Crawford, Baker and 

But this is not all that Dr. Baker says on Buck. Is he » prepared to give that his 
the subiect. He further remarks, and fully sanction?" By questions artfully pro- 
to mv purpose: « A church is bound to pounded, suppressing truth and suggesting 
take cognizance of every manifest violation , falsehood, he drew from them answers to 
byits members, of any of the laws of Christ's sustain himself. In common life a man 
kingdom, with which it becomes acquainted, who obtains property "by false pretences 
whether the information of such violation commits a felony, which sends him to the 
is communicated in a regular order or not." penitentiary, ^e answers in question, of 
« The church is required to set her seal of these distinguished brethren, were certain- 
disapprobation upon every transgression of ly "obtained," and used, "under false pre- 
the law of God. Her obligation to do this, [ tences." This, then, is a moral felony. 11 
is not made to depend in the slightest de- \ a legal felony sends its perpetrator to the 
gree, upon the means by which she arrives , penitentiary, does not a moral felony unlit 
at the knowledge of the transgression ; for [ J. R. Graves for membership in this church? 
the character of the offence is not affected | Is a moral felony less criminal than a legal 
in the least, by the manner in which it is felony? Can a man be tolerated in t 



made known." " So long as she is ignorant 
of the offences committed by her members, 



church, while boldly committing crimes for 
which, in society, he would be consigned 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



99 



to the cells of a dungeon ? Mr. Graves' 
object was not only to degrade me generally, 
by publishing their letters, but especially in 
the estimation of these distinguished breth- 
ren. What shall I soy to all this. Had it 
been my property of which he was seeking 
to deprive me, he would have gone to the 
State prison for this crime, as the law pre- 
scribes. It was, however, my character, 
infinitely more valuable than property ever 
can be. Is there no penalty for him 
<troys your character? Is this no fel- 
ony ? And this is the man who denounces 
this church as a disorderly faction, for pre- 
suming to arraign and try him, for such 
offences, and who sets up himself, and his 
score of parasites, as the only pure, and or- 
thodox First Church in Nashville. Has an 
instance ever before occurred of such unit- 
ed guilt and presumption ? Again I ask, 
does^ brother Davidson approve that corres- 
pondence ? 

He is not prepared to give his sanc- 
tion to the notes I wrote to Mr. Graves. 
All that correspondence is before you. Par- 
don me, Mr. Graves' alleged missive of the 
5th of April last, is, whether properly or 
improperly, omitted. Mr. ,Q raves has, in- 
deed, published it in his paper, but it is not 
recorded in the proceedings of this trial. He 
savs that the letter he published, was that 
u-hich I sent back unopened, and that in it 
he asked of me a private interview. I will 
not say that this letter, published four 
months after it is said to have been written 
and commented upon so voluminously, is 
not the letter really sent. In a former part 
of this trial, I tacitly admitted that it might 
have been. I must, however, now say that 
I did not then, and that I do not now believe 
it. Xo proof exists that this note publish- 
ed, I think, in September, was the same 
with that written to me in April, except 
Mr. Graves' assertion, and what reliance can 
we place, upon the truth of a man convicted 
as he now is before you, of uttering so 
many known <xnd deliberate falsehoods? I 
have strong reasons, indeed, to believe that 
it is not the same, since the published letter 
is comparatively brief, and the envelope 
sent to me was large, full, and its contents 
evidently voluminous. If this is not the 
note sent me, it must be one afterwards 
concocted by J. R. Graves, to suit his pur- 
poses, and foisted upon the public as that 



which I declined to receive. Is not this 
very much like Mr. Graves, who writes 
anonymous notes to himself, that signed 
Probus, for example, lauding J. R.Graves, 
and defaming other men? Another con- 
sideration. If he wanted a private inter- 
view with mo, in compliance with the in- 
junction of Christ, in Matt. 18, why did he 
not come to me in person ■ I was his pas- 
tor. I should have received him as his 
pastor. He was not afraid that I, who have 
done him so many favors, would not now 
speak with him. Mr. Pendleton says that 
J. R. Graves is afraid of no living man. 
He was then, not afraid of me. Why does 
he pretend that he wrote me a letter, when 
he was within a few squares of me, asking 
a private interoiewt The truth of all this 
is. to say the least, very questionable. I 
will give as my apology for not introducing 
this note, the fact that in this trial, I have 
presented — I will present before the church 
no letter whose authenticity is questionable. 
These, brethren, are the reasons why, in 
this trial, that alleged letter has not been 
laid before you. That they are satisfac- 
tory to you, and will be to others, I do not 
doubt. 

Still further. If during a revival of relig- 
ion, the public participation of a member 
of the church, whether lay or ministerial, 
in the exercises, would prove prejudicial to 
the meeting, would it not be the duty of 
the pastor, privately, to request him to ab- 
stain from such public participation, and es- 
pecially in his absence ? So I thought, 
honestly and sincerely. Hence my private 
note to Mr. Graves on the 3d of April last. 
Of thai, private note much»has been said. 
I will repeat here, that to subserve his pur- 
poses of schism and division, he exhibited 
it the next day, April 4th, publicly, at 
church, to as many as possible of the breth- 
ren and congregation. He, all this while 
saying not one word to me about it, sent it 
trumpet tongued throughout the land, and 
then with falsifications as to its origin, 
character, and purposes, he published it in 
his newspaper. As to the correspondence 
which commenced the 19th of July, and 
terminated with so much excitement, on 
the 19th of August, that has already been 
sufficiently explaired. It was the whole of 
it, from first to last, collateral and inciden- 
tal, and did not, and could not change the 



100 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



character of J. R. Graves' public offences, 
long continued, and flagrant, into " a per- 
sonal quarrel [with mo] that ought to have 
been settled privately," or that possibly 
could have been settled privately. 

But brother Davidson states an especial 
reason why this correspondence did not re- 
ceive his approbation. It demanded that 
J. 11. Graves should retrace and disavow 
his false and injurious imputations against 
me, and that he should do this in the same 
manner, and as publicly as he had made 
them. He says : " For a man to take back 
what he has said, is not always the best 
mode of settling difficulties among chris- 
tians, and therefore, he thought the demand 
should not have been made." 

If a man, I answer, be he a christian or 
not, shall publish an article in a newspaper, 
in which he charges you with hypocrisy, 
dishonesty or falsehood, is it enough that 
he come to you, and make a private apolo- 
gy, refusing mean time, to withdraw publicly 
these foul imputation?? Could he in that 
way, ever do you justice? Could you pos- 
sibly think such a man honorable, or even 
sincere? Would men in honorable, social, 
or political life, require less? Have not 
christians as much honor as other men? 
"Why does brother Davidson think that 
"this is not always the best mode of set- 
tling difficulties among christians?" The 
Savior requires that if one man has injured 
another, that the offender shall not only 
rejient of the wrong, but that he shall also 
make ample reparation for the injury. Sup- 
pose that injury is inflicted by public defa- 
mation in a newspaper ? Is a private apol- 
ogy sufficient? Does this amount to the 
reparatioiTdemanded by the Savior, of every 
christian? Paul's opinion on this subject 
differed widely from that of brother David- 
son. He and Silas, his companion, were, 
by the public authorities of Philippi, un- 
justly apprehended, abused, and cast into 
prison. The next morning they had thought 
better of the subject, and as Luke tells us, 
"The Magistrates sent the sergeants say- 
ing, let these men go. And the keeper of 
the prison told this saying to Paul." "But 
Paul said," " They have beaten us openly, 
uncondemned, being Romans, and have 
cast us into prison, and now do they thrust 
us out privily ? Nay verily. But let them 
come themselves, and fetch us out." And 



the Magistrates did come, "and brough 
them, out." Brother Davidson does not, 
I presume, censure Paul for this high 
and honorable conduct. Why, then, when 
I pursue a like course, is he " not pre- 
pared to extend his approval ? If Paul's 
conduct was christian, mine certain- 
ly was also christian. I respectfully sub- 
mit, whether a close observance of christian 
conduct is not always the best mode of set- 
tling difficulties among christians ?" I 
honestly believe that it is, and I do not 
think that brother Davidsou will now dis- 
sent from my opinion. 

But brother Davidson has still other rea- 
sons for withholding his approbation to 
that correspondence. He tells you that : 
"To make a statement, and then take it 
back, carries with it a species of degrada- 
tion." 

Doubtless J. R. Graves thinks so. He, 
therefore, told you the other night, on this 
platform, in his peculiarly classic style, that 
lie could not, or vjouM not sioallow his paper." 
He has said in that sheet that the members 
of this church are a company of graceless 
persecutors, without honor, honesty, or 
truth. He take that back ! No sir. He 
cannot do it. Possibly he might make a 
apology, not to be spoken of beyond 
that .small circle. But to take itback/wS- 
licly as he made it ; no, sir; this ''carries 
with it a species of degradation !" And 
are these my brother's conceptions of hon- 



jligi 



mot think 



In 



his praiseworthy auxiety to save us from 
the pain and trouble of amputating this 
gangrenous member, which, if retained, 
would certianly destroy our ecclesiastical 
life, his thoughts have for the moment be- 
i come confused. He has, I must believe, now 
] better conceptions on this important sub- 
ject. Why should we "cry peace, peace, 
| when there is no peace ?" Solomon truly 
| said, " There is a time for peace, and a time 
for war." And never did that wise man 
speak more wisely. The church has sought 
peacefor }*ears, and its pacific spirit, and 
measures, have only encouraged his boliger- 
ancy.Xo alternative is left. It must con- 
sent either to confront the accuser, and 
stand upon its defence; or must tamely 
surrender the cause of Christ, and submit 
to receive at his hands a dishonorable and 
unchristian destruction. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



101 



The church could have avoided all this 
agitation, and strife, so much deprecat- 
ed by brother Davidson, and by many 
others, and the end of which he thinks 
none of us will live to see! But upon 
what terms ? Had we, as this church has 
too long done, bowed our necks to the yoke 
of Mr. Graves; had we preferred his in- 
terests to the interests of Christ; had we 
borne without complaining, his abuse, false- 
hoods, and defamation*: had we endorsed 
all his immoral and unchristian conduct; 
had we obeyed all his behests, and flattered, 
and eulogized him, as judging from 
the columns of his paper, so many of his 
blind sycophants are wont to do ; we should 
have had no trouble. "We should have been 
lauded by him as the very paragons of wis- 
dom and piety; and while we continued to 
do so, our popularity, so far as his paper 
was concerned, would have been unbound- 
ed. But to have obtained this elevation, 
which, after all, would have been the pop- 
ularity of mere slaves, what must have been 
our sacrifices? We must have abandoned 
Christ, and religion, and honor, and truth, 
and self-respect. God's frown would have 
rested upon us, as the pall that covers the 
coffin of the dead. We should no longer 
have deserved the regard of our brethren. 
A mountain of shame would have over- 
whelmed us. And are we prepared for all 
this? J. R. Graves exacted no less. He 
believed himself able to force our submis- 
sion. I have reasons for this opinion, to 
some of which I will refer. "When it was 
first intimated that his iniquities, would 
probably not much longer be endured, and 
the church would perhaps feel itself obliged 
to call him to account, we were, as we have 
before seen, publicly, and through his col 
umns, dared to do so, and threatened, 
should we attempt such a thing, with the 
most fearful consequences. I speak advis- 
edly, and what some of us know from 
our own personal observation to be true, 
when I say that papers were prepared in 
this city, and sent oat to churches and as- 
sociations, and others were procured from 
associates at a distance, in a half a dozen 
States, and as soon as it was announced, 
which Mr, Graves hastened to do, that he 
was charged befor the church, these papers 
came back, endorsed by the bodies to 
whom they had been sent for the purpose. 



and were published by scores in the Ten- 
nessee Baptist, seconded by inflammatory 
editorials. They all denounced us as a set 
of persecutors, unscrupulously seeking to 
put down Graves because we envied his 
greatness and popularity ; and our proceed- 
ings were denounced as unscriptural, cruel, 
and iniquitous; and this, too, before his 
trial commenced, before any proceedings, had 
been instituted, except the bare charge, and 
before these churches and associations had 
any competent knowledge whatever on the 
subject, except that the charge in question 
for " immoral and unchristian conduct," 
was preferred against him before the church. 
They did not even know who had preferred 
this charge. They had been told by the 
Tennessee Baptist, that I did it, and that 
the most atrocious thing charged was that 
Mr Graves had inserted my name in his 
Register for this year, without the appended 
Doctor of Divinity. 

As a specimen of many of them, I will 
read one from an Association in another 
State. Its style, you will perceive, is pre- 
cisely that of the senior editor of the Ten- 
nessee Baptist. It is as follows, dated Oc- 
tober 12th : 

" Resolved, That we regard the charges 
preferred in the First Baptist Church in 
Nashville, as reported in the Tennessee 
Baptist of September 11th, 1858, against 
Elder J. R. Graves, as the last expiring 
throes of envy, malice, and the darker pas- 
sons of the human heart (which is desper- 
ately wicked ) and chagrin, deep mortifica- 
tion, and bitter disappointment of the par- 
ties engaged in this unholy and wicked at- 
tempt to alienate him (Graves) from the 
affections of his brethren." 

We had the alternative to submit 
to 3Ir. Graves, and have peace, or fol- 
low Christ and his word, and breast 
thisstorm. The church chose Christ, and the 
storm. I honor it, and our brethren 
every where will honor it for this decis- 
ion. 

Brother Davidson further tells us that 
this process of requiring a man to take 
back his statements, is dangerous. He 
says that among men of the world, "Such 
a demand, if refused, is commonly followed 
by a duel." 

We have not inquired, brethren, wheth- 
er what we have demanded is dangerous or 



102 



|TIRAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



not. We only ask whether it is scriptural 
and right. We are, I hope, not " men of 
the world." Mr. Graves, therefore, fortu- 
nately for him, need not fear "a duel," 
nor bodily harm of any kind, notwithstand- 
ing his several attempts in his newspaper, 
to make people believe that he and his al- 
lies are in danger in that respect, lie 
will, I trust, dismiss all his apprehensions 
on that score. " Among men of the world" 
the danger indicated may, I grant, ex- 
ist. For less offences than thuse he has 
committed against gome of us, many a 
man has, upon the ensanguined field, 
poured out his life-blood. The evil, how- 
ever, in its origin and turpitude, is cer- 
tainly with li i 111 who publishes the false, 
and injurious statement. A man should 
ponder long before he sends forth in the 
columns of a newspaper offensive pei 

i le who makes such publications, be 
he editor or iK it must expect to be called 
to account, and be prepared to meet the 
consequences, whatever they may be. If, 
wider wrong impressions^ a man has made 
such publication, and fiudsthat he has done 
his antagonist an injury, if a gentleman, and 
much more, if a christian^ he will require 
no prompting, but hasten of his own accord 
to " take it back." lie will do so promptly, 
cheerfully, fully. To a true man, it never 
occurs that in the withdrawal of such pub- 
lications, there can possibly be any " spe- 
cies of degradation" whatever. Have 1 
in any way injured any one, and especially 
my brother? No power on earth shall pro- 
vent me from making, as soon as I have 
discovered it, a suitable confession of my 
error, and full reparation for the injury in- 
flicted. Is that injury public ? I will 
make a public confession and reparation. 
My own honor demands it. My religion 
demands it. He who thinks otherwise, has, 
in my judgment, fallen into a most serious 
error. It is only the upstart, the unprin- 
cipled, and the bully, who can act upon 
other grounds than those I have now indi- 
cated. Of such, with glorious old Jacob, 
I can truly say : 

"0 my soul, come not thou into their secret; 
To their assembly misie honor, be not thou united. '» 
Of course, these considerations are ap- 
plied to the case before us. J. R. Graves 
assails, defames, and seeks perseveringly to 
degrade me in the estimation of my breth- 



ren. He has the proof that his statements 
are all without foundation in truth, and that 
they are injurious in the highest degree. 
I call upon him to retract and disavow 
them. My request only increases his wrath 
and the vindictiveness of his assaults. My 
friends call upon him. The only effect is 
to turn his blows upon them also. He re- 
fuses every offer, and will withdraw noth- 
ing. His auswer is "I cannot swallow my 
paper." His paper! If it had been swal- 
lowed up in the depths of the sea five years 
ago, its destruction would have been a bles- 
sing to our whole country. No such with- 
ering evil as the Tennessee Baptist has 
within my knowledge, ever before visited 
the Baptist churches, and people of the 
South. It has inflamed their passions, en- 
gendered distrust, put them in fierce con- 
flict with each other, substituted sectarian 
rancor for the love of Christ, and wherever 
it has influence, well nigh driven all spirit- 
uality from the heart. 

Brother Davidson, without, however, ad- 
mitting all this, kindly reminds us that 
" It is God-like to forgive." I grant it. But 
let it be remembered that God does not for- 
give impenitent and persistent offenders. He 
forgives those, and those only, who repent 
and forsake their sins. If we do the same, 
it will still be God-like. As to myself, I 
can truly say that personally I cherish no 
enmity towards J. R. Graves. I have no 
disagreements with him that I am not 
ready at any moment to reconcile, should I 
find in him a corresponding disposition. 
But I again remark that all this is a side 
issue, and does not enter into the merits of 
the question before us. I refer to them 
only because they are auew brought up 
by brother Davidson. 

Brother Davidson is, however, impressed 
with Mr. Graves' protest, and cannot, it 
seems, divest his mind of the conviction that 
some sort of private action ought to have taken 
place before this case was brought before the 
church. His feelings on this subject deserve 
respect, and I shall treat them respectfully. 
Possibly they may be shared by others, if 
not here, at least probably elsewhere. To 
satisfy him, and them, if any entertain this 
opinion, I will again refer to Mr. Graves' 
own authoritv, Rev. Dr. J. S. Baker. Pe- 
riodical Library, Vol. 1, 1847, No. 4, p. 
2G2 — 273. Dr. Baker says : 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



103 



"The rule in Matt. 18, 15—17, is limited 
to cases of personal differences, and cannot, 
therefore, be extended to cases of public 
t, [such as those of Mr. Graves,] 
without sanctioning a principle most mani- 
festly erroneous and highly pernicious in its 
tendency." ''There is neither precept nor 
example in the word of God, to justify the 
belief that it is our duty, ordinarily, to ad- 
monish a public offender [Mr. Graves for 
example.] privately, before he is called to 
an account publicly for his conduct." 

To satisfy the reader of the correctness 
of this assertion, we would direct his at- 
tention to the numerous injunctions given 
in the sacred writings in refeience to pub- 
lic offences. The following are some of the 
many to which we refer : 

Romans, xvi, 17 — " Now I beseech you, 
brethren, mark them which cause divisions 
and offences, contrary to the doctrine which 
ye have learned ; and avoid them." 

1 Cur., v, 4, 5 — "In the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered 
together, and my spirit, with the power of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a 
one unto Satan for the destruction of the 
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus." 

Verse II — "But now I have written unto 
you not to keep company, if any man that 
is called a brother, be a fornicator, or cov- 
etous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunk- 
ard, or an extortioner ; with such a one, 
no, not to eat." 

Verse 23 — "Therefore put away from 
among yourselves that wicked person." 

2 Thess. iii, 6 — " Now we command you, 
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from 
every brother that walketh disorderly, and 
not after the tradition which he received of 
us." 

Verse 14 — " And if any man obey not 
our word by this epistle, note that man, and 
have no company with him, that he may be 
ashamed." 

1 Tim., v, 20—" Then that sin, rebuke 
before all, that others also may fear." See 
also Prov. xx., 10 — Gal. i, 7, 9, — 2 John, 
v., 1, 10, &c. 

"On these passages of Scripture, we have 
but two remarks to offer. 1st. They are 
addressed, with but one exception, to the 
people of God, or the Church ; and, in the j 



passage excepted, the Apostle gives to the 
highest officer in the church a rule, which 
is evidently designed not so much for the 
regulation of his own conduct, as for the 
government of the church over which he 
presides. This is apparent from the in- 
structions which precede it, relative to wid- 
| ows, unmarried women, elders, &c. 2d. 
• In these passages there is not the most dis- 
tant allusion to any preliminary stejis, re- 
j quired to be taken, as in the case of personal 
j differences, — no direction to go to the of- 
! fender, and " tell him his fault between 
; thee and him alone," and " if he will not 
hear thee, take with thee one or two more," 
&o. As it respects the examples of Christ 
and his Apostles, they are adverse to the 
opinion which we are combating. Christ 
publicly charged the Scribes and Pharisees, 
and even his own disciples, with their der- 
elictions of duty. But as some may ques- 
tion the propriety of making the acts of an 
Omniscient and sinless Savior a precedent 
for short sighted and erring mortals, in 
matters of this kind, we will refer to the 
acts of his disciples, after the administra- 
tion of the affairs of the church was de- 
livered up into their hands. 

At an early period, while yet the disci- 
ples held their possessions in common, 
Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of a 
novel species of fraud, and of a barefaced 
falsehood. Peter received intelligence of 
the fact. It is not stated whether he re 
ceived it by a direct communication from 
the searcher of hearts, or through individ- 
uals who were acquainted with the circum- 
stances of the case, for it was a matter of no 
consequence to us to know by what means he 
obtained his information. But as it was of 
importance that we should be acquainted 
with the course of conduct which, under 
such circumstances, Infinite Wisdom would 
approve, the particulars of the proceedings 
in the case are given in full. Ananias and 
Sapphira appeared successively before the 
Apostles and those who were assembled 
with them. Peter did not take them aside 
and, expostulate with them on the evil nature 
of their sin, and urge them to an acknow- 
ledgment of their guilt, and a profession 
of penitence, but interrogated them, re- 
spectively, relative to the transaction in 
which they had offended, and publicly 
charged them with the guilt of lying unto 



104 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



. f 



the Holy Ghost. God set the seal of his 
approbation upon the course pursued by 
Peter, by visiting them with a most awful 
and speedy judgment. 

It should be borne in remembrance, that 
the infliction of the punishment, in this 
case was not the act of the apostle, but the 
immediate act of God. See Acts v., 1, 11. 

On a subsequent occasion, Peter himself, 
it appears, was guilty of pursuing a course, 
which did not well comport with his chris- 
tian vocation. For this the Apostle Paul 
passed his censures upon him, not in a 
privaU interview } but in the presence of an 
assembly of the disciples — •• /.fore them, 
all." — Gal. ii., 11, 14. .Moreover, the pro- 
ceedings in this case wer i recorded, sent 
abroad, and read to the churches. While 
empires have risen and fallen, that record 
has been preserved by the kind Providence 
of God, and is still read to the churches 
for their edification. We do not learn that 
Peter, after the manner of some offenders 
of our day objected to the course pur- 
i Paul in order to screen himself 
isure. Nor does it appear that he 
manifested at the time, or subsequently, any 
hostile feelings towards him who had thus 
publicly accused him of conduct inconsist- 
ent with his christian character. So far 
from this, when he had occasion to mention 
Paul in one of his epistles, he speaks of 
him as " our beloved brother Paul." — 2 Pet- 
er, iii, 15. 

Enough has been said, we conceive, to 
evince that the precepts of the gospel and 
the examples of the apostles, so far from 
teaching that it is our duty invariably to 
admonish a public offen ler privately, before 
we arraign him publicly, sanction a course of 
ctly the opposite of this. 

But we have heard it objected, that the 
apostles acted under the immediate and 
special influences of the Holy Spirit, and 
therefore, their examples aie not safe pre-, 
cedents for us. In reply to this objection, 
we have several things to say : 1st. An of- 
fender will seldom want for a plausible ob- j 
jection to every rule of discipline which is 
applicable to his case, even though such be 
expressly given in Scripture. 2d. If we | 
admit what is objected to the examples of! 
the Apostles, it will by no means follow, j 
that an opposite course of conduct to theirs ' 
would be correct. 3d. If the simple fact 



that the Apostles acted under extraordina- 
ry influences of the Spirit, renders it im- 
' proper to follow their example in one in- 
stance, in which it is possible to imitate 

■ them, we see not why it should not render 
, it equally improper to follow them in any 

other of their public acts. 4th. "We can- 
not believe that the Holy Spirit would dic- 
tate a course which was repugnant to the 
[principles of moral rectitude or natural 
equity. As these principles are as eternal 
and unchangeable in their nature as the 
being of God, we cannot conceive that 

■ what was morally right in the days of Pe- 
ter and Paul can be morally wrong now. 
5th. The examples of the apostles and prim- 
itive disciples, we are expressly taught in 
Scripture to follow. (See 1 Cor. iii, 1 — 
Phil, iii, 17—1 Thess. i, 7—2 Thess. iii, 
9, &c.) This, of itself, should be sufficient 
to obviate every objection. 

As we have answered an objection to the 
views which we entertain, we will now pro- 
ceed to state an objection or two to the rule 
of those who differ from us in opinion. 

1st. Their rule must necessarily prove 
invalid. It can bind no one; for what is 
every man's duty is evidently the duty Gf 
no one in particular. When an individual 
is guilty of a public offence, the knowledge 
of his guilt becomes, as it were, public 
property, and every member of the church 
suffers equally from his defection. The 
duty to go to him, therefore, cannot devolve 
upon any one in particular. Moreover, if 
you require the public offender to be ad- 
monished privately, before his conduct is 
submitted to the church for investigation, 
you do virtually extend over him the aegis 
of your protection, and insure impunity in 
sin to the grossest offenders. The greater 
the offence, too, the greater would be the 
security of the offender : for who would 
ever i-eport to the church the case of the 
confirmed drunkard, the notorious gambler, 
or the abandoned woman, if he were re- 
quired first to admonish such in private. 

2d. We further object to the rule in 
question, that if it be observed, it cannot 
secure the ends which we should have in 
view. The rule is based upon (he mistaken 
notion [entertaiued as we have seen by Mr. 
Graves] that the reformation of the individ- 
ual is the principle thing that renders action 
necessary. But interests have been affected 



TRIAL OF REV J. R. GRAVES. 



105 



infinitely superior to the individual interests 
: His misconduct has brought 
reproach upon the cause of Christ, and 
served to fortify the ungodly in their unbe- 
lief, and confirm them in all their hard 
speeches and ungodly deeds. He has fixed 
a stain upon the christian name, which all 
his tears of penitence can never wash 
away: and he has rolled a stone against the 
sinner's heart which no subsequent exer- 
tion of his power can ever remove. If 
there is not an action of the church on his 
case, her neglect will fix, indelibly, a stain 
on her own character. So long as she holds 
in fellowship the offender, she must and 
will be considered as holding fellowship 
with his deeds of darkness. The pr 
objects which should be kept in view in 
dealing with public offenders, should be the 
preserving untarnished the honor of the cause 
of Christ, and the good name of the church. 
But these objects could not be advanced 
by requiring the offender to be admonished 
privatdy, before he is brought to the bar of the 
church. Should he repent and make ac- 
knowledgments in private, this could not 
supersede the necessity of an action of the 
church ; as nothing but an action of the 
church could evince to the world, that she 
had no fellowship for his unchristian acts. 
The argument cui bono, must be allowed, 
therefore, to have its full force here." 

Thus is it clearly seen that there is no 
authority in Scripture for requiring public 
offenders, such as Mr. Graves, to be admon- 
ished privately, before their cases are sub- 
mitted to the action of the church ; and 
that both scripture and reason forbid the 
incorporation of any such rule into the gov- 
ernment of the church. Therefore, the 
proceedings of this church up to this hour, 
have been scriptural, regular and proper. 
These conclusions, it seems to me, no well 
instructed Baptist can call in question. 

I regret also, to hear some other declara- 
tions of the Tennessee Baptist, reiterated 
by brother Davidson. He thinks that the 
specifications are trivial! 

I am sure he has not considered them, 
or if he has, that he is infected with the 
strange notion which apparently obtains so 
widely in this quarter, that acts and pub- 
lications which, by any one else, would be 
denounced as insufferable, are, when per- 
petrated by an editor, the merest trifle ! 



Are editors, and especially professedly re- 
ligious editors, not amenable to the laws of 
truth and honor that govern other men? The 
same rule must govern us all. This, all must 
admit. Is it, I ask. a trivial offence to fo- 
ment discord among brethren ? Is it a triv- 
ial offence to divide the church, and set its 
parts at war with each other ? Is it a triv- 
ial offence for a man to utter and publish 
against his pastor, numerous foul and atro- 
cious libels '! Is it a trivial offence for a 
man to slander and defame his brethren 
throughout the country ? Is it a trivial 
offence for a man, with malicious intent, 
to utter and publish numerous known and 
deliberate falsehoods ? Of all these this 
church has, after careful and prayerful de- 
liberation, and upon ample and unques- 
tionable testimony, pronounced Mr. Graves 
guilty. 

David, it seems, had enemies like ours, 
of whom bespeaks thus: "Lo, they lie 
in wait for my soul. The mighty are gath- 
ered against me. Xot for my transgres- 
sions, nor for my sins." " They run and 
prepare themselves without my fault." 
" Behold, they belch out with their mouth. 
Swords are in their lips." And against 
them, he thus uttered his prayer : " For 
the sin of their mouth, and the words of 
their lips, let them even be taken in their 
pride; and for cursing, and lying which 
they speak." These are precisely Mr. 
Graves' offences, and David, inspired by 
the Spirit, spoke of them as crimes of the 
deepest dye. Are they trivial in Mr. 
Graves ? If these are trivial, then no 
crimes can ever be important. Such a 
thing as " grossly immoral and unchristian 
conduct" cannot exist ! An editor cannot 
sin ! But brother Davidson now begins to 
see more clearly than he has seen hereto- 
fore. This phenomenon is readily account- 
ed for. At first, and up to the night when 
he completed his schism, he sympathized, 
he tells you, with Mr. Graves. His eyes 
were then opened. Graves went too far. 
He could not follow him. He sympathiz- 
es with him no longer, and yet he has not 
been able to escape from quite all the er- 
roneous notions that he had so firmly em- 
bedded in his mind. Brother Davidson is 
now with the church. So are a half a doz- 
en other brethren, as I happen to know, of 
the forty-one, claimed by the schismatics. 



106 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES 



Their example, in this respect, will, 1 1 matter of disagreement to a council, just 
trust, be followed by all the remainder who : in the same way as individuals sometimes 
really love our Lord Jesus Christ. submit their differences to an arbitration. 

Regret has been in various quarters ex- It is in this case understood that the 

We and impartial council , churches respectively, in consenting to such 

was not called to assist the church in this j a reference, agree to abide the award. 

important trial. This, however, is, or ought to be, an ex- 

The original design was to eall such a ceptional case, and should occur only in 
council, but it will be remembered that Mr. those instances where every other expe- 



sed giv- 
ing any such direction to the case. Mr. Marks, 
the brother-in-law of Graves, assured us that 
Graves intended to contest the case before the 
church; and Mr. Rutland, Mr. Crei^hton 



dient fails. It must be kept in mind be- 
sides, that the council while acting in this 
capacity, has no original right of decision. 
All its powers it derives from the fact of 
the churches, calling it, and is no more a 



and Mr. Layton made speeches to show ' tribunal than is any other board of arbi- 
that for committees, and all similar appli- ' trators whatever. It is the more necessary 
ances, there is no scripture authority what- to guard this point, as it is so easy for the 
ever. All those who are now the Graves actual truth here to be lost sight of, and 
faction, and who have published that they [ councils come to be regarded [as Associa- 
are about now to call a council of their tions already are, in this part of the coun- 
own, to try Mr. Graves, then insisted that try] as a sort of tribunal outside of the 
councils, committees;, and all like forms, \churches, [and above them,] possessed of 
are wholly opposed to scriptural polity, and original jurisdiction." 



that ev I b> tried l>g the 

and by the church alone. Disposed to ex- 
tend lenity as far as possible, and to 
comply if possible with their wishes, the 



The scriptures know nothing of any 
suoh bodies. The only organizations re- 
cognized in the divine word, are churches. 
Each church is an independent body, ac- 



brethrea acceded to their desires, and the ; knowledging no sovereign but Christ, the 
aa brought at once before the church. Head of all the churches. Through the 
All this is well known to the church. If '■ connection of all the churches with Christ, 



the church has erred in trying J. R. Graves 
without the assistance of a council, it is be- 
cause he, and his partisans, demanded that 
it should do so, and it kindly consented to 
defer to their requirements. 

In regard to councils abstractly consid- 
ered, pardon a few words. 

Some one has recently said, and entirely to 
my purpose, that, "As helps in the disposi- 
tion of complicated and difficult questions, 
they may be made very useful ; while at 
the same time it is evidently quite possible 
for them to usurp authority, or otherwise 
abuse their privilege, so as to become a 
mischief rather than a help." "One thing 
must be regarded as a settled truth, from 



the common head and sovereign, a bond of 
union arises which connects them with 
each other. Each is as independent of the 
other, as if no other existed. Their union 
with each other is indirect, and dependant 
upon their union with Christ ; nor evident- 
ly, does it admit of any legislation what- 
ever. Even the churches themselves, in- 
dividually, have no original sovereignty. 
All the power they possess, is given them 
by Christ, their head. All the authority 
therefore, possessed by each cturch, is a 
delegated authority. It extends only to 
its own members. It is a characteristic of 
delegated authority, that it cannot be re- 
delegated by the party receiving it. Each 



which no considerations whatever shall church has received from Christ, sovereign 
tempt us to depart. This is that all ques- power for its own government. That sov- 
tions of discipline, and management, in j ereignty is therefore inalienable. No 
the affairs of any church, are for the | church, nor combination of churches, can 
church, and the church alone to determine. : confer it upon anothar. Therefore, no 
The only modification of this that can be , church has the power to convey to another 
admitted, is that sometimes churches may ! body an authority equal to its own. Christ 
consent between themselves, or parties ; has given it no right to do so. Ii is absurd 
within the same church, to refer some ! to suppose that it can do so. A church i3 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



107 



a representation of Christ. No representa- 
tive can create another representative. 

the original appointing 
power. Tertian ; granted by 

to the chui .dually, to be 

exercised by themselves. Do they under- 
take to create a second organization, -with 
powers equal to their own? This is plainly 
an assumption of original sovereignly. It 
is an infraction of the sovcrc ignty of Christ. 
No church therefore can confer on a 
ciation, or a council, or any other such 
govern it. or to interfere 
with or revise its proceedings. No coui- 

D of churches can d< 
ciation?, councils, and other similar bodies, 
are consequently necessarily inferior to the 
churches. The churches cannot make them 
their equal. When they essay to do so 
they usurp the authority of Christ ; and 
when these bodies attempt to exercise judi- 
cial legislative, or other govermental au- 
thority, they also u-urp the power of Christ. 

-in against God. and nee 
upon themselves misery, shame, and suffer- 
It is plain therefore that a council 
can have no original jurisdiction, nor can 
it decide for a church, even should that 
church earnestly desire it. any matter of 
discipline whatever. The church must it- 
self speak, or no authoritative decision is 
ever pronounced. And when an individual 
church does speak, her sentence is final. 
From that sentence there is no appeal. 

If we look into the past we shall be ad- 
monished to carefulness on this subject. 
'•Every reader of history knows during 
how many ages the Popes and General Coun- 
cils contended with each other for the su- 
preme ecclesiastical authority. It seemed 
to have been conceded that the churches 
must acknowledge a master, and the simple 
question was which of these tico should be 
the master. These councils lorded it over 
the consciences of men. It was the coun- 
cil of Constance that condemned John 
Huss to the stake. And ail this outrageous 
usurpation arose out of an original use of 
councils, such as that which Baptists now 
practice. We do not mean to say that we 
are in danger of a renewal very soon of 
. --erne form of ecclesiastical despot- 
ism; but to show that the natural tendency 
is, unless proper guards are thrown around 
them, to lodge with councils a power which 



I not only does not belong to them, but which 
is also dangerous to purity of discijy 
to the / our churches. We would 

have the churches properly value that high 
prerogative which they received from the 
Master, when he said: '"Whatsoever ye 
shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea- 
• ven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
earth, shall be loosed in heaven." So long 
as they act with his authority, and in strict 
conformity to his law, the churches have a 
[ :> expect that what they do in this 
capacity, will thus be sanctioned, and con- 
firmed by him." 

I admit that councils, as soinetim, 
among us, may be very useful, but I can- 
not help feeling that there is too much 
readiness to resort to them, and that there 
. is a growing tendency to disrespect the ac- 
tion of churches, in importaut cases of 
discipline, which are decided without their 
assistance. Will they not soon come to be 
considered as essential to church govern- 
ment? Are we not verging towards a 
Presbyterian polity, and disposed : 
contrary to scripture, a right to councils 
and associations, to revise our proceedings, 
and even, if they see proper, to reverse 
them ? Power is apt to steal insensibly 
from the many to the few, and how long 
will it be €re the churches will have given 
, up their sovereignty, have lost their inde- 
pendence, and we be found in the same 
: race towards ecclesiastical despotism, with 
other greatg and popular denominations. 
At present this danger threatens to come, 
and quite naturally, from that very quarter 
, in our ranks, which is the most vociferous 
in its denunciation of the power, and ty- 
ranny, alleged to be exercised in the gov- 
ernment of other denominations. With 
these men, power, it would seem, is only 
deprecated when it is against them, and 
church sovereignty only maintained when 
it can be made to subserve their purpose. 
Power in their own hands, legal or illegal, 
is exercised and defended to the last ex- 
tremity. 

Against all ex parte councils I must here 
raise unequivocally my warning voice. 
Wben both parties in a contest can agree 
upon a council as a board of referees, 
advisory simply, good results may arise. 
The church meditated such a council in 
the commencement of this trial. Mr. 



108 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Graves' party refused it. You would not 
have an ex parte council ; therefore, you 
could have no council at all. Mr. Graves 
now calls a council ex parte. He would 
not admit of a disinterested council. What 
is now the object of his council ex parte ? 
What can it be but to whitewash him and 
his schism, by their pretended endorse- 
iin jit: which, if it assembles, it will do un- 
doubtedly. Ominous voices have come to 
us lately, on this subject, from Kentucky, 
New Vork, and other quarters. Ex parte 
councils can never command my respect. 
Seldom do they ever meet, that they do 
not perpetrate irreparable mischief. To 
avoid diem our churches must appreciate 
their own high prerogat ive, "It must be 
their study to make the provisions within 
themselves answer all the purposes of eccle- 
siastical discipline, and the established re- 
lations between churches, must suffice to 
keep them in harmony with each other. 
The law of Chr><t, and the spirit of Christ, 
are the two grand provisions made. If we 
have these fully, the occasions for councils 



naught the word of God, and trample rea- 
son and brotherly love under their feet, in 
order to heap indignity upon this church. 
That merely missionary body constituted 
itself into a High Court of Appeals, sat in 
judgment upon the decision of this church 
before it was made, and allowing it no hear- 
ing in the case, pronounced authoritatively, 
its condemnation. Thus a mere missionary 
organization conducts itself towards a sov- 
ereign church, in no way amenable to it. 
Such a scene of passion, violence, and in- 
justice, as was there enacted, I never be- 
fore beheld, I hope never again to witness. 
It has never been equalled by any party 
political gathering of which I have any 
knowledge. I there heard myself, and this 
church, denounced as no Baptists at all, a 
set of factionists, and unworthy to be re- 
cognized as christians. 

But truth cannot always be suppressed. 
Men cannot always remain furiously mad. 
The "sober second thought" must come. 
Then if our brethren are indeed christians; 
if the love of God, and of their brethren, 



and for all exterior helps to good discipline | is in their hearts, they must, they will 
and mutual peace, will pass away forever." ! hear the voice of reason and religion. 



Brother Davidson regrets, as he tells us, 
the action of the church, because Mr. 
Graves has many friends, and that they 
u-ill treat your decision vrith contempt 

That Mr. Graves has many friends, who 
sustain him for peculiar reasons, and that 
they will for the present at least, treat your 
decision with contempt, there can be no 
doubt. They have already treated you with 
contempt before you have reached any de- 
cision. You can, however, having the ap- 
proval of Christ, afford to bear their con- 
tempt. "If God be for us, who can be 
against us ?" The fear of their contempt, 
is no good reason why the church should 
not act, provided her action is scriptural, 
deliberate, prayerful, just. But the decree 
has gone out from this metropolis, that it shall 
be so, and we know full well, that any de- 
cision you might reach v:ill be l 'treated with 
contempt" for a season. We saw the other 
day at Lebanon, a specimen of what we 
are to expect in this quarter, enacted under 
the name of the General Association. In 
that place a large number of good, but de- 
ceived men, were brought together, drilled 
for the purpose, and were induced to out- 
rage the constitution of that body, set at 



When all the facts are before them, then 
they will see, and confess, that this church 
has been guided strictly, throughout this 
whole trial, by "the law of Christ, and the 
spirit of Christ." Then their present 
"contempt" will be turned into admiration 
of the firmness of this church, of its pa- 
tience, and the unshrinking purpose with 
which it has sought to discharge a painful, 
and most difficult duty; maintaining un- 
desecrated scriptural discipline, undeterred 
from calm and deliberate action by the fiery 
assaults of thousands of adversaries. To the 
present case peculiar circumstances have 
elicited the attention of the whole country. 
The eyes of all our brethren are upon us. 
Should the church withdraw its fellowship 
from Mr. Graves, I believe that they will 
respect its decision ; whether they will, 
however, remains to be seen. If they do, 
Mr. Graves must either go down finally, or 
else he must repent of his sins, forsake 
them, and seek restoration to the church. 
If they do not respect its decision, what 
then ? Undoubtedly our cherished, and 
scriptural principles of church sovereignty 
under Christ is at an end ; Baptist Church 
Government is a failure; and wickedness 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



109 



in high places, mast not only go unrebuk- 
ed, but bo upheld, cherished, and defeuded, ; 
by our own brethren. Which of these re- . 
suits is to arise time will soon show. One 
or the other is inevitable. This case will 
test the polity of our churches. It will 
either destroy, or establish it. Let our 
brethren, as brother Davidson says they 
will, "treat your decision with contempt;" 
let J. R. Graves be received, and counten- 
anced by them, as he was before this trial, J 
and accepted as if uneensured; or if ex- 
pelled, as still in fellowship as a member, 
and a minister; and who then, among our- 
selves, or others, will feel the least respect 
for Baptist church government? Who 
will dare to defend its practical efficiency? 
They will pull down upon their own heads 
this glorious temple, erected by the Savior, 
and like another Samson, bury themselves 
in its ruins. But no, I cannot believe 
it. Our brethren will, they must respect 
the decision of a church. But these are ; 
not questions that so directly concern us. 
For what our brethren may do, or not do, 
elsewhere, we are not responsible. I have 
not inquired, the church has not inquired, j 
whether its decisions will be approved by 
many or few, of our brethren, or others, 
here or elsewhere. Our object is not to 
please men, but to do the will of God. Is 
it not still as true as it was in apostolic 
times, that, "If we yet pleased men, we 
should not be the servants of Christ"?: 
Are our decisions thus far, scriptural, and 
just to all parties ? Have we reached our 
conclusions calmly, by impartial investiga- 
tion, seeking humbly, prayerfully, the di- ; 
vine direction ? These are the proper in- 
quiries for us, and not whether what we do 
will meet human approval. We are not 
indifferent to the good opinion of oui 
brethren. We ardently desire their love, 
and approbation. But if we are compelled 
to choose whether we will please our breth- 
ren or please Christ, we cannot hesitate. 
Our brethren are dear to us, but Christ is 
infinitely more clear. We will please and 
honor our brethren if we can. At what- 
ever hazard we will please and honor 
Christ. 

The motion before you is that J. R. 
Graves, for grossly immoral and unchris- 
tian conduct, of which you have found him 
guilty in five distinct cases, be now expelled 



from the fellowship of this church. If he 
be expelled, this act of course cancels his 
authority to preach, and administer the 
ordinances of the gospel. His authority 
as a minister, goes necessarily with his 
membership. Being no longer a member, 
he is of course no longer a minister of this, 
or of any other church. Brother Davidson 
has not told us whether he thinks Mr. 
Graves ought to be expelled or not, or 
whether he shall vote for his excommunica- 
tion or against it. Whatever may be his 
opinion of the specifications under the 
charge regularly before you, I am very con- 
fident that he thinks his expulsion demand- 
ed by offences committed since. Brother 
Davidson was present, and heard J. R. 
Graves denounce us to your face, as a dis- 
orderly faction ; as incompetent to sit in 
judgment upon his case ; as indeed, no 
Church of Christ at all; and that he should 
resort to another tribunal, an ex parte 
council, with his own followers, to pro- 
nounce judgment upon him, and upon us. 
He saw him take down the names of the 
forty-one who voted to remand the case, of 
which Brother Davidson was himself one, 
and heard him call upon them to declare 
themselves the First Baptist Church, and 
with which about twenty of them com- 
plied, pronouncing themselves the Church, 
and us no Church at all. This is the 
party that the General Association received 
as the First Church in this city, and made 
Mr. Graves its presiding officer, when it 
usurped the power to expel us from that 
body. All this Mr. Graves has said, and 
done, or procured to be said and done, be- 
yond the things specified in the charge for 
which he was arraigned before you. Can 
it be that brother Davidson still thinks that 
this church can do its duty, and not pro- 
nounce the sentence of excommunication 
upon J. R. Graves? Has this church any 
fellowship for him? Are not all the ties 
that bound him to us, of confidence,' lend 
love, already broken? In all except the 
formal ecclesiastical act, he is even now ex- 
communicated. In pronouncing the sen- 
tence proposed in the pending motion, the 
church does but publicly declare this previ- 
ously existing state of the fact, and make them 
official. The word of God makes our duty 
imperative. Speaking of such men as J. 
R. Graves, Christ says : "Let him be unto 



110 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



thee as a heathen man, and a publican." Brethren frcm all parts of the couutry 
And Paul says: ''Now we command yon wer e calling for information in regard to 



brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 



this trial. Letters had been received ask- 



Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from . 

brother that walketh disorderly, and in 8 wh J the Church had not been heard, 
not after the tradition which he received of and it was evidently necessary that the pro- 
us." "Put away from among yourselves ceedings of this trial should be published, 
that wicked person." The duty is a pain-j He> therefore, moved that the proceedings 
ful one, but we cannot avoid it. I close , ,- c -, , ., t> . , ., r ,. , 

• ., ' ,, «. i- • • j -x- ' be certified by the Reporter and the Clerk, 

with a memorable apostolic admonition : , 

I fast in one spirit, with one mind and published, that all may see what has 
striving together for the faith of the gos- been said and done; and that brethren 8. 
pel; and in nothing terrified by your ad- M. Scott, W. F. Rang and A. Nelson be 
versaries; which is to them an evident appo i nted a committee to superintend the 
token of perdition, but to you of salvation, ,,. . , .. . ., t, a . x 

—j *u„+ en a v : •* • 'publication of the same in the Raptist 

and that ot (rod. ror unto vou it is given ' l 

in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe | Standard, and that they have a sufficient 
on him, but also to suffer for his sake." I number of copies printed in pamphlet form 
ive you with vain words, to meet any demand that may exist for 
fur because of these things eometh the information iu rC£rard t0 tae trial, 
wrath or God upon the children of disobe- 
bediencc. Be not ye therefore partakers 



with them. For ye were sometime dark- 
it now are ye light in the Lord. 
Walk as children of light, proving what is Pendleton 
acceptable unto the Lord, and [having] no ce(M ]i ur , s 

Mr. Fuller explained that the matters to 



The Moderator inquired whether the re- 
monstrance from the Raptist Church at 
Murfreesboro, and that from Elder J. M. 
should appear with the pro- 



fellowship with the works of darkness." 

The Moderator inquired if any other 
brother desired to offer any remarks; if 
not, he should proceed te put the question. 
No one responded. 

The Moderator : The question before 
the Church is, Shall the Rev. J. R. G 



which they referred had no immediate con- 
nection with this trial. 

The motion of Dr. Howell was then con- 
curred in. 

3Ir. Fuller suggested that as the proceed- 
ings of the trial were very volumnious, the 



upon the charge now before you, be expelled editor ofthe " Ba P tist Standard" be author- 
from the fellowship of the Church? Those izcd to Publish such portions in his paper 
who believe that the Rev. J. 11. Graves ! as he mi 2 ht deem proper. 



should be now expelled from the fellowship 
of the Church, will rise. 

Upon a count, it was ascertained that 
seventy-eight were found standing. 
^ The Moderanor : Those who believe that 
v. J. R. Graves should not be expel- 
led from the fellowship of the Church, will 
rise. 

None rose. 

The Moderator: TheRev. J. R. Grates 
is unanimously expelled from the 
fellowship of the flrst raptist 
Church in Nashville. 

Dr. Howell wished to make a suggestion. 



Mr. Woolfolk, the Editor of the "Raptist 
Standard" thought it best that the entire 
proceedings should be published in the 
paper, and it was so ordered. 

Mr. Fuller said that the response from 
the Raptist Church at Murfreesboro, as 
well as that from Elder J. M. Pendleton, 
which had been received and laid upon the 
table, ought to be taken up and acted upon. 
He, therefore, moved that when this meet- 
ing shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet Mon- 
day night next, for the purpose of consid- 
ering these responses, and any other matter 
that may be brought before the meeting. 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Ill 



The motion was concurred in. 

Dr. Howell said it had been reported 
that a number of letters had been received 
protesting against this trial. He had re- 
ceived none himself, and he desired to in- 
quire of the Clerk whether he had received 
any such letters from Associations, Church- 
es or individuals. 

The Clerk stated that he had received 
only two such letters, one from an Associ- 
ation and one from a Church. 

Mr. Fuller submitted a motion that a 



committee of three be appointed, whose 
duty it shall be to prepare a reply to the 
letters from the Association and Church 
mentioned by the Clerk, and also to pre- 
pare and report business for the action of 
the meeting on Monday night. 
The motion was concurred in, and 
The Moderator appointed Messrs. C. A. 
Fuller, TV P. Jones and A. Xelson said 
committee. 

The meeting then adjourned with pray- 
er by Mr. Woolfolk. 



The foregoing is a correct copy of the Report of the proceedings of the 
trial of Eldee J. R. Graves, by the First Baptist Church, of Nashville, as 
furnished by me. 

JXO. MILLER McKEE, Reporter. 

As Clerk of the First Baptist Church, I hereby certify to the correctness 
of the foregoing Report. 

S. M. SCOTT. 



SYXOPSIS 



OF THE 



TEIAL OF J. R. GRAVES. 



Frem t\e Baptist Standard. 

TEE TRIAL. 
In the last number of the Standard, the 
final proceedings in the trial of J. B. 
given. A concise resume of the 
facts in the case may be expected from us. 
Let us first take a brief review of the 
■: nves before the church. 
On the first night of the trial he protested 
against the right of the church to try him. 
on the ground that he was not guilty of 
public offences, but personal. The indict- 
bi -ught by brethren before the church 
charged him with public offences, " grossly 
immoral and unchristian conduct," and 
this in five counts, each of which, if true, 
constitutes a public offence. But Mr. 
3 maintains, that though charged with 
grossly immoral and unchristian conduct, 
he is guilty of personal offences only, and 
-.sequently, the church had no right 
to try him. Xow, when a church member is 
charged with immoral conduct, it is evi- 
dent that the church has a right to try 
him, even though entirely innocent. Her 
duty to Christ requires her to investigate 
the facts, that it may be discovered wheth- 
er this injury to the cause of religion has 



been perpetrated : her duty to the accused 
demands that she investigate the charge, 
and vindicate him if innocent. The church, 
in such a case, has a duty similar to that 
of the courts of our country. When a 
man is charged before a court as guilty of 
conduct punishable by our laws, he may 
assert his innocence; and it is the glory of 
English laws, that the accused must have 
a fair trial before he can be pronounced 
guilty. But it would be an unheard of in- 
novation, if every man charged with crime, 
could plead his INNOCENCE as a bar to 
trial. If this could be established as pre- 
cedent, no criminal could be convicted : 
all would plead not guilty, and demand to 
be turned loose from the bar, "unwhipped 
of justice," to renew their depreda- 
tions on society. The accused has a risht 
to demand a trial; he may produce all the 
testimony he can command ; he may meet 
and rebut the evidence brought against 
him; but he cannot refuse to be tried. 
There is one exception only to this rule. 
"Where an offender is charged before one 
court with an offence which belongs pro- 
perly to the jurisdiction of another, he 
may plead to the indictment; and deny the 



114 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



right of the court to try him for an offence 
of which it has no jurisdiction. But the 
case of Mr. Graves does not come under 
this exception. He was charged with of- 
fences of which the chureh, jure divinn ) 
has jurisdiction. If he denies the rightof 
the church to take jurisdiction of public 
offences, he opposes at once the practice 
and teachings of the New Testament. If 
he denies that he is charged with public 
offences, he flies in the face of the indict- 
ment, which charges " grossly immoral and 
unchristian conduct." If he maintains that 
though charged with public offences, yet 
his offences are private only, he is at once 
met by the universal rule of justice, which 
binds a man pleading not guilty, to go into 
trial, that his innocence may be established, 
by rebutting the charge brought against 
him. This it was the duty of Mr. Grave* 
to have done. Why he did not, we can- 
not conceive. He evidently had not taken 
the bearings of his position, or he would 
have been able, since, to defend it with 
greater ability. He would have been 
able to bring forward at least some argu- 
ment to sustain it; and his inability to ad- 
duce a single one in the columns of his pa- 
per, is proof that he mis-calculated the 
strength of his position. If he had gone 
into trial, made a defence7and, if excluded, 
had he then obtained admission into anoth- 
er church, his position would not have 
been entirely defenceless : many of our 
brethren believe, though as we think incor- 
rectly, that one church has a right to re- 
ceive a member excluded from another 
church, when she thinks the action unjust. 
Had Mr. Graves acted in this manner, he 
would have been sustained by a principle 
held by many Baptists ; and then the issues 
would have been made on the question of 
his guilt or innocence. The church would 
then have been compelled to defend her 
course, by proving that Mr. Graves was 
guilty, and that his exclusion consequently 



was just and right. But in the present 
attitude of Mr. Graves^ this question does 
not properly arise. He denied the right 
of the church to try him : his partizans 
sustained him in his denial: hence the only 
question now before the churches for their 
decision, is whethera church has a right to 
investigate a charge of immoral conduct 
brought against one of its members. On 
this question there can be no doubt. 

Baptist Churches have ever held that 
this right is unquestionable. We have 
never known a previous instance in which 
it has been doubted. 

Mr. Graves' own witnesses sustain 
the action of the church in proceed- 
ing with the trial. 

Mr. Graves made great efforts to obtain 
authority by which to sustain the course he 
adopted. He wrote a letter to Rev. Br. 
Jeter, of Virginia, and claimed that his 
reply was an endorsement of his course. 
But Dr. Jeter, with all the facts before him, 
has expressed his conviction that the church 
acted scripturally, in deciding to proceed 
with the trial. He says : 

The case, as I understand it, is this : Sev- 
eral members of the First Baptist Church, 
brought against Elder J. R. Graves, the 
charge of gross immorality. The specifi- 
cations in support of the charge were of- 
fences against individuals, but these offen- 
ces were publicly committed, and were, in 
part, designed, as it was alleged, to '^dis- 
tract and divide the church." I think the 
church acted scripturally in entertaining the 
charge. The offences charged were of a 
mixed character, partly personal and partly 
public — and the church could not decide pre- 
viously to investigation whether any of them 
belonged to the class referred to in Matthew 
18. The right of the church to investigate 
the charge seem clear. The investigation 
was due to Elder G. He was a minister 
in the church, had been solemnly charged 
with immorality, and a full examination of 
the charge was demanded for his vindica- 
tion, if he was innocent. The trial was 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



115 



due to the accusers. They had brought a 
. which if false, v. gainst 

themselves. The examination was due to 
the church herself. If the accused mem- 
ber was innocent, she was bound to defend 
him ; if guilty, to reform or expel him. 
•rse is, so far as I am informed, ac- 
cordi; . tf usage It is ak & ifc is his ri ht his d , 

tural. -'.Now I beseech you, brethren, , , ° _. . . , 

mark them which cause division* and of- r ort U t0 the chureh - Thl ls what 



except by supposing him to place the pow- 
er of judging of the course proper to be 
pursued, in the members who are cog- 
nizant of the offender's conduct. If a 
church member sees a brother engaging 

public 
re- 
we 



in conduct which he deems a 



fences contrary to the doctrine which ye understand Bro. Buck to teach; and this 
have learned; and avoid them." Of this is what brethren did in the case of J. 
ffenee, and almost in the precise h»n- 1 R. Graves. They had seen him for 

Elder G. charged. If an indi-' _„„, ,„„ -i- k .. j -r • 1 

c ,, . -r 8 . . , . years assailing brethren, and railing, with 

vidual guilty ot this ofience is to be mark- ' ,. . , 

ed and avoided, he surely should have a j opprobrious epithets upon every brother 
fair trial. whom he supposed to stand in his way; 

Rev. W. C. Buck was also writteu to by they had witnessed his slanders and revil- 
M_r. Graves. The principle laid down in i Q g s > aQ d bad borne with them : they now 
his reply fully sustains the action of the ', beheld him attempting, without cause, to 
Church. Speaking of public offences — ! ruin their pastor, whose usefulness was the 



such as violate divine precept, he says : 

"All that is necessary in such cases in or- 
der to church action, is adequate proof of 
the action by the accused party ; for if the 



property of the church, and whose influ- 
ence tended to the advancement of the 
cause of truth : they beheld him endeav- 
oring to accomplish his ruin by libel and 



action is proved upon him, his guilt is de- j reviling, unfounded, and unmerited; to ac 



termined by the unerring divine precept. 
The act is sin, because it is transgression 
of a divine law, and if the proof of the 
party's guilt is sufficient to establish the 
fact upon him, he may be arraigned before 
the church without attending to the forms 
laid down in the 18th of Matthew." 

The principle is here laid down, that in 
cases of public offences, the accused member 
may be arraigned immediately before the 
church. But no man can be condemned as 



complish this end, they beheld him sowing 
strife between him and an influential min- 
ister in the church ; they beheld him even 
attempting to distract the church itself, in 
order to effect his purpose. They deemed 
this, and properly, conduct constituting a 
public sin ; they thought the exhibition of 
such passions and feelings dishonoring to 
the religion of Jesus ; they knew it was 



contrarv to the precepts of Him whose re- 
gmlty before a trial. 1 he church cannot know ,. . , , , ,. n , , . 

f e , . , , i ,, , „ . «. ligion is love ; they believed tnat the time 

before a trial whether "the proof is suffi- ; . „ . , . 

; . ,. . s , _ , ., . ,, _, . i for forbearance was past : they charged 

cient to establish the fact upon him." This i , . , „ •, , , . , , . - . ; 

. ,, i . n . , m , i him before the church with his immoral 

is the object of a trial. Tne church can- j n , . . , „ , , , Al 

. , . „ . . ,. I and unchristian conduct. How should the 

not know before investigation, any thing 

of the conduct of a member. Who is to 



judge whether the conduct is such as to 

require that it should come immediately 

before the church ? It cannot be the 

church, for this would reqnire the church to 

pre-judge the case before trial. TVe can 

place no interpretation of Bro. Buck's Ian- 1 in cases of P ublic offence ' brotlier Buck 

guage, which does not result in absurdity, | sa J s ^ as ner & ut J- Tne church could know- 



church have acted ? She could know noth- 
ing of the matter without inquiry; she had 
no right to institute such inquiry except in- 
the presence of the accused: her only 
course was to summon him before her, and. 
proceed to investigate the charge. This, 



no 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



nothing of the character of the offence 
without investigation ; she could ODly take 
cognizance of the charge. The charge 
specified immoral and unchristian conduct: 
it was the duty of the church to investigate 
the charge. 

Mr. Graves also wrote to Rev. Dr. Ba 
ker for his opinion, who in reply sent an ex 
tract from the Periodical Library, in which, 
he had, some years ago, given his views on 
this subject. Mr. Graves claims this extract 
also as an endorsement of his course. But 
the views presented by Dr. Baker in that 
work sustain the course of the First Church 
most fully, and unequivocally condemn the 
course of Mr. Graves. He says : 

"There is one error prevalent in many 
of our churches, which should be corrected. 
We allude to the opinion, that a violation of 
the rule [ISth chapter of Matthew] by the 
• ■<], in bringing an offender before the 
church before he has pursued the course pre- 
scribed by the Saviour, relieves the church 
from the obligation to deal with the individ- 
ual thus arraigned before them. 

'■ Were the effects of personal difficulties 
confined to the parties more immediately 
implicated, such an opinion might be main- 
tained with some degree of plausibility ; but 
it should be remembered, that every offence 
committed by one individual against anoth- 
er, is an offence committed against the whole 
■ linst the cause, for the further- 
ance of which that body was incorporated. 
While, therefore, the irregularity in the 
course pursued by the person aggrieved might 
subject him to censure, and preclude from 
him the right to complain of the church, 
should she neglect to act upon the case, it is 
certain, that such neglect could not fail to 
afford just cause of complaint to others. 

On this subject we lay down two distinct 
propositions, and request our readers to test 
their correctness by the touchstone of 
God's word. If they be found correct, let 
them be carried out into the acts of their 
respective churches, to the honor of God 
and to the good of His cause. 

I. A church is bound to take cognizance 
of every manifest violation by its members, 
of any of the laws of Christ's kingdom, 
with which it becomes acquainted, whether 



the information of such violation is commu- 
nicated in a regular order or not. 

The reasons for this rule are obvious. The 
church is required to set the seal of her dis- 
approbation on every transgression of the 
law of God. Her obligation to do this is 
not made to depend, in the slightest degree 
upon the means by which she arrives at a 
knowledge of the transgression ; for the 
character of an offence is not affected, in the 
least, by the manner in which it is made 
known. The magistrate is as much bound 
to have a band of robbers arrested, when 
information of their acts of robbery is com- 
municated by one of their own number, 
who has turned a traitor, as when it is com- 
municated by an honest and orderly citizen. 
And so is the church as much bound to no- 
tice offences committed, when she receives 
her intelligence through one who is an of- 
fender, as when she receives it through the 
most harmless and exemplary of her mem- 
bers. So long as she is ignorant of the of- 
fences committed by her members, she is not 
chargeable with them; but the moment she 
is made acquainted with them, if she fails to 
adopt measures for calling the offenders to 
account, and for preventing the recurrence 
of like offences in future, she virtually sanc- 
tions those offences, bids the offenders God 
speed, becomes a partaker of their evil deeds, 
and renders herself amenable both to God 
and man. [See Ps. L, 18—1 Tim. v., 22 
— 2 John xi.] 

"A. charges B. with trespasses committed 
against himself, before he pursues the course 
prescribed by the Saviour. B., in return, 
charges A. with, a violation of the rule to 
which we have referred, and pleads, per- 
haps, that the church has no right to deal 
with him, as the case was informally brought 
before it. Such aplea is evidently invalid.'' 1 

"We have frequently known churches to 
dismiss cases indefinitely, because there was 
some irregularity in the manner in which they 
were brought before them. In other in- 
stances, the cases are dismissed until the ac- 
cuser brings his accusation in the prescribed 
form. These generally prove, too, final dis- 
missions. If we are right in the views ex- 
pressed in the preceding part of this article, 
that church is vjrong which pursues either of 
these courses. "He that knoweth to do good 
and doeth it not, to him it is sin." By a 
parity of reasoning, that church which knows 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



117 



of the existence of an evil in it, and neglects 
to correct it promptly, must be viewed as 
guilty before God. 

" When an individual is charged with 
criminal conduct, if instead of replying to 
the charges brought against. HIM, he endeavors 
to criminate others, he affords strong presump- 
tive evidence of his ovm guilt. He acts upon 
the same principle with the thief, who when 
the officer of justice and the mob are at his 
heels, raises the cry, and cries lovdest of all, 
"Stop thief! stop thief ! " His principle is 
to evade justice by diverting attention from 
himself to some other individual. To pre- 
vent your plucking the beam out of his own 
eye, he would set you to picking at the mote 
in his brother's eye." 

From this it is seen that even if the of- 
fence of Mr. Graves had been only of a per- 
sonal, instead of a public character, still Dr. 
Baker, Mr. Graves' witness, condemns his 
course. If the offences of Mr. Graves were 
admitted to be personal only, and if Dr. 
Howell had himself brought the matter be- 
fore the church, neither of which is true, 
still, according to Dr. Baker, the Church 
had not only the right, but duty required it 
to investigate the case. Yet, Mr. Graves 
maintains that Dr. Baker sustains him in 
his assertion, that the church, by that act, 
unchurched herself. The course of Mr. 
Graves is condemned even by the state- 
ments of his own witnesses. 

"We may sum up the issue between the 
Church and Mr. Graves in syllogistic form 
as follows : 

I. A church has the right try members 
charged with public sins. 

II. J. R. Graves was charged before the 
church with public sins. Therefore : 

The church had a right to try J. R. Graves. 

I. A Church has the right to try 

MEMBERS CHARGED WITH PUBLIC SINS. 

Is it necessary to bring forward argu- 
ments to sustain this principle ? 

It has never, to our knowledge, been 
questioned by Baptists. This right, ihis 



duty, follows from the fact that the 
church is the conservator of the morals of 
its members. 

The churches may learn their duty in 
this regard, both from the practice and the 
teachings of the Apostles. 

1. Their Practice. — Wherever the 
conduct of an individual was contrary to the 
will of God, we find that the apostles and 
early christians invariably rebuked the of- 
fender publicly. Annaniasand Sapphira re- 
ceived the public rebuke of Peter for their 
falsehood, and the justice of God at once 
visited the ollenders with the punish- 
ment of their crime. When, some time af- 
ter, Peter preached the gospel to the Gen- 
tiles, in the persons of Cornelius and his 
household, the brethren at Jerusalem, 
supposing that he had violated the divine 
will, publicly reproved him. The apostle 
made no complaint of the manner in which 
the reproof was administered, bub only de- 
nied its justice. Pie showed that he had 
not violated the will of God, but had acted 
in direct obedience to it. Again, when the 
conduct of Peter at Antioch was to be 
blamed, Paul reproved him in the presence 
of them all. His conduct was a cause of 
stumbling to the brethren, and the correc- 
tion, to be beneficial, ought necessarily to 
be as public as the offence. We learn from 
the third epistle of John, that Diotrephes 
"prated against" the apostle "with malicious 
words." The apostle threatens that, upon 
his arrival, he "will remember his deeds;" 
strongly intimating that the proper punish- 
ment by exclusion from the church, would 
be inflicted. That this is the course indica- 
ted in his threat, becomes evident from the 
teachings of the Apostles. 

2. Their Teachings. — Paul enjoins the 
Romans to avoid those who caused divisions 
among them, ''Now I beseech you brethren 
mark them which cause divisions and offences, 
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learn- 



118 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



ed; and avoid them." Romans xvi: 17. These' 
brethren were not to be "avoided" until their 
guilt had been established by an impartial | 
trial. The injunction then, must be inter- I 
preted to command a trial of those charged 
with such offences, and the avoidance of the 
guilty. In the fifth chapter of First Corin- 
thians, the church is commanded " to put ; 
away that wicked person," who had been) 
guilty of public sin. And among the char- \ 
actors so to be dealt with, are mentioned' the 
fornicator, the covetous, the idolator, the 
RAILER, the drunkard, and the extor- 
tioner. To the Church at Thessalonica the 
command is given : " Now we command 
you brethren, that ye withdraw from every ! 
brother that walketh disorderly" — 2nd Thes- ' 
olonians iii : 6. In giving Timothy direc- | 
r his conduct in the churches, Paul 
imposes the command: "If any man teach 
otherwise, and consent not to wholsome ' 
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and to the doctrine which is accord- 
ing to godliness; he is proud, knowing noth- 
ing, but doting about questions and strifes 
of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, rail- 
ings, evil surmising- disputings of 
of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of 
the truth, supposing that gain is godliness : 
from such withdraw thyself." — First Timo- 
thy vi : 3-5. 

These injunctions were not to be obeyed 
withouta trial of those acciiEed; hence all such 
commands are based on the right of the church 
to try persons charged with such offences. To : 
this effect is the injunction of Paul to Tim- 
othy : "Them that sin rebuke before all, 
that others also may fear." 

These teachings of divine inspiration in 
reference to public offenders, abundantly sus- 
tain the principle stated, that a church has a 
right to try members charged with public I 

This principle of church polity is univer- 
sally held among Baptists ; and, as has been 
ieen, is sustained by brethren Jeter, Baker, 



and Buck, as indeed it is by all who have 
written on this subject. 

II. J. R. Graves was charged before 
the Church with public sins. 

To sustain this statement we need only 
refer to the indictment, which charges J. R. 
Graves with "grossly immoral and unchris- 
tian conduct." Hence the conclusion necessa- 
rily follows that THE CHURCH HAD A 
RIGHT TO TRY J. R. Graves. 

It is established now, that in the issue 
made by Mr. Graves, between him and the 
church, the course of the church was en- 
tirely scriptural. The principles of jus- 
tice, and the teachings of inspiration alike 
sustain its right to proceed with the trial. 

The offences of J. R. Graves 
warranted his exclusion from the 
Church. 

We proceed to the investigation of a 
point, which it is important that our breth- 
ren abroad should be able to decide properly. 
The church proceeded with the trial, and 
after a calm hearing of the evidence, pro- 
nounced J. R. Graves guilty of the offences 
charged and acting under a sense of duty, 
solemnly excluded him from her fellowship. 
The right of the church to proceed with the 
trial, upon his refusing to appear, is unques- 
tionable. Otherwise every member charg- 
ed with immoral conduct before his church, 
might estop its proceedings in his case, by 
refusing to appear before it. 

To prove the scriptural propriety of the 
final decision of the church we submit the 
following propositions : 

Prop. I. The proof presented be- 
fore THE CHURCH ESTABLISHES THE GUILT 

of J. R. Graves in the offences charg- 
ed. 

The ojjtnce first charged against J. R. 
Graves, is having endeavored to force the 
Pastor of the First Baptist Church into 
collision with A. C. Dayton, with intent to 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



119 



bring upon hiin reproach and injury, and 
-iroy his character and influence in 
the South West. Bid lie endeavor to pro- 
duce the collision ? When we see an indi- 
vidual intermeddling hetween two neigh- 
bors and continually telling one that the 
other has injured him, and falsely asserting 
that he has assailed his character and mo- 
tives, we affirm, unhesitatingly, that he is 
seeking to stir up strife between them, and 
to set them at variance. So, if Mr. Graves 
seeks, by unfounded assertions, to make the 
impression that Dr. Howell was endeavor- 
ing injure Elder Dayton, that he had as- 
sailed his character and conduct, we may be 
assured that he desired to stir up strife be- 
tween them. Did he not do this ? It is in 
proof that he did this and more. lie al- 
leges that Dr. Howell is engaged with oth- 
ers in a systematic attempt t,o cripple down 
Elder Dayton ; he declares that Dr. Howell 
attaints Dr. Dayton for malfeasauce in office; 
that he casts suspicion upon him; that he 
is euvious of the good which Elder Day- 
ton has done, and of the love and attention 
which he enjoys, and desires to make him 
pay the penalty of his superiority and use- 
fulness; he repeats that Dr. Howell casts a 
most unkind and cruel SUSPICION upon 
Bro. Dayton; that he (Howell) knew it [his 
letter] would wound his feelings, and de- 
signedly sought to wound him, and to mar 
his peace; that he knew it would, and con- 
sequently intended to excite SUSPICION 
against him; that he knew of a paragraph 
which had been penned by a member of the 
Bible Board, and he, the President of the 
Board reproduced it to vjound and cast sus- 
picion on Elder Dayton. This unfounded 
tirade of reiterations could tend to but one 
end, viz : to destroy harmony, and to cause 
dislike on the part of Elder Dayton, and 
thus promote strife between him and 
bis Pastor. That these allegations are 
ill unfounded, may be seen by turning 
to the speech of Dr. Howell, where the 



matter is fully explained. Why should Mr. 
Graves seek, by placing false glosses upon 
the language of Dr. Howell, to stir up strife 
between him and Elder Dayton? Elder Day- 
ton was possessed of great popularity; Mr. 
Graves was, as he now states, offended with 
Dr. Howell : take these facts in connection 
with the animus shown by Mr. Graves — 
the implacable hostility with which he as- 
sailed his pastor, and we cannot escape the 
conviction, that he sought to force this col- 
lision, as a means of casting odium upon 
Dr. Howell, and thus destroy his character 
and influence. 

The second offence with which Mr 
Graves is charged, is attempting to distract 
and divide the church, by means of a con- 
flict between the Pastor and four of the 
Deacons. He maintains that the Pastor 
made "a most gross and shocking ATTACK 
upon the men :" that he questioned their 
ability, and "offered them the grossest in- 
sult ;" and he himself stands forth as their 
defender against the alleged furious AS- 
SAULTS of their pastor. He reiterates again 
and again that his attack was unprecedented; 
shocking to the feelings of all present in 
the convention; that it was astonishing and 
painful; and he felt in duty bound to de- 
fend them. And though no reflection, not 
the slightest, had been made against them, 
he asks "what can be the charge against 
these men." "Dees he mean that those 
four Deacons of his own church as well as 
the three other brethren nominated are so 
ignorant, or unprincipled &c.;" and twits 
them with the declaration that an explana- 
tion would be demanded from another man." 
Again he asserts, growing more and more 
reckless in each paper, that the Pastor cast 
upon them a "cruel suspicion" offered them 
a "gross insult" and maintains as if 
against his assertion that they are "not to be 
corrupted by bribe or by favor", and de- 
clares that their pastor has offered them the 
"grossest insult" in ^"supposing th«y 

I 



120 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



could be used in this way." He intimates expediency, and propriety. 

that their pastor charged them with being 

^incompetent" or "unsafe to be trusted," 

and continually heralds himself as their 

champion against the "grossest INSULT 

offered to them." What could be tl 

pose of all this tissue of unfounded alle- 



Those who 
know the frankness of Dr. Howell's nature, 
the entire absence of concealment which 
characterizes him, will at once recognize in 
this speech, that open manliness and free- 
dom from guile, which conscious of no evil, 
imputes no evil to others. Elder Pendle- 
gation ? It was done without an object, ton admits that he " made no such charge," 
merely to indulge his spleen, by railing but that " he publicly disavowed the iinpu- 
upon his Pastor, or the purpose was, (and tation of improper motives to G. [Gr; " 
Mr. Graves never acts without a purpose; ; And states that " he [Pendleton] under- 
to stir up strife between the Deacons of the stood" that " this was the end of the mat- 
church and lis Pastor, and, bj thus pro- ter. " The disavowal was received as se- 
ducing a conflict, to distract and divide the isfactory." Then we perceive that, thus far, 
Church. The object is manifest: it could neither Mr. Graves, nor any one else had 
be no other. any ground for complaint. The only fur- 

The third offence charged against Mr. ther action taken by Dr. Howell in this 



and publishing 

libels against his pastor. 



sundry 



matter, consists of a letter to the I 

in which* he states his objections to 



Before proceeding further, let us briefly the d organization . But U coa 

examine the course of Dr Howell, to see tained no personal reflection, or imputation 

what was the occasion for all this vitupera- vi 7 t> iw • 1 j x 

v on any one. Elder Pendleton is pleased to 
tion, misrepresentation, and a: •• , 111 

It is well known' that in the fa]1 term it a "strange letter, hut he does not 

of 1859, a Sunday Sehool Convent! xi an offeuslve one - 



was called to meet at Nashville. It 
was supposed that the Convention would 
take into consideration the best means 
of promoting the cause of Bund 
c„i,~ 1 „ 1 "V • v a 1 ' violent strain of defamation and misrepre- 

fechools, and of rousing our brethren to the . F 

sentation. 

Mr. Graves begins his revilings with 



consisted, perhaps, in his daring to oppose 
a cherished scheme of Mr. Graves, in a 
calm dignified manner. This was his only 
offence; the only occasion offered for this 



importance of the work. But the commit- 
tee appointed, reported in favor of making 
the Convention permanent, with a Board at 
Nashville, for the purpose of furnishing 
Sunday School lociks. This organization, so 
unexpectedly proposed, was opposed by Dr. 
Howell in a speech on the floor of the Con- 
vention. In that speech he advised Mr. 
Graves, as his Pastor, and his friend, not to 
insist on the organization, lest his enemies 
might impute to him interested motives ; 
at the same time earnestly disdain. ing all 
intention to impute such motives himself. 
He made no attack upon Mr. Graves, nor 
on the proposed Board, but opposed tbc 
organization solely on general principles of 



much caution. He tests public sentiment 
and will not venture too far at first. "Where 
there was so little ground for calumny, he 
did not dare to proceed at once to the 
length he desired. Public sentiment must 
be prepared to view the victim with dis- 
trust and enmity, before the sacrifice is 
offered. His misrepresentations must be 
allowed to leaven the public mind; mean- 
time, he contents himself with endeavoring 
troy all respect for Dr. Howell, by 
exhibiting him in a contemptible light. 
He represents him as either knowing and 
approving the design for which th< 
vention was called, and afterward turninsr 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



121 



against it; or as advocating in the Associ- 
ation a design of which he knew nothing, 
or which he abhorred. He alleges, that 
kuowing all about the design, which was 
not concealed from him, he first advocated, 
and then opposed it. 

Rut six weeks afterward, this caution is 
discarded. The grapnels which he has 
thrown out have caught firm hold of the 
prejudices of his adherents; it remains to 
work them deeper. The mask is now 
laid aside. He now represents '• Rrother 
Howell," " whom he has never sought to in- 
jure," " for whom he has ever entertained 
the kindtST feelings," as a " Herod," "by 
whom this glorious enterprise was sought to 
be slain at its birth f compares him to " the 
Babbies" of our Saviour's time — to "the 
Chi-f Priests and Scribes," in ; - opposing the 
noblest efforts for the advancement of truth;" 
he asserts that he (Howell ) has " stirred up 
the strife ;" that like the Ephesian copper- 
smith, he •• stirred up the mob," by crying 
great is Diana of the Ephesians, [The South- 
em Baptist Publication Society.] He 
charges him with the despicable feeling of 
ENVY of Dr. Dayton; alleges that he repro- 
duced the articles of another, impugning his 
[Dayton's] motives, and blackening his 
character. He publishes with approval, com- 
munications of his correspondents, in which 
the unfounded allegations are made, that he 
is assailing time-honored principles of the 
Baptists ; that envy of the influence and 
popularity of the Tennessee Baptist and 
South-Western Publishing House actuate 
him ; that he is a milk and water Baptist, 
and assailed men for their Landmark prin- 
ciples ; that he, with others, is engaged in 
a work of proscription, is endeavoring to 
counteract the influence of Mr. Graves, and 
to destroy his business ; that he wronged 
Mr. Graves, cast suspicion on his innocence, 
and traduced his reputation ; that he tra- 
duced Dayton, and caricatured Graves; 



that he is mercenary ; that he has sought to 
crush out, and choke down certain men and 
their enterprises ; it is alleged (with a 
sneer) that he is furiously attacking Old 
Landmarkcrs; that he has made a war on 
men, instead of opposing measures : that 
he is no true Baptist ; that his Index let- 
ter was unchristian; that his position is 
suicidal to our churches and children ; and 
that he is seeking popularity from the RE- 
DOES, hy striking down his friends laboring 
for the advancement of truth." Will it be 
believed, in future time, when prejudice 
has subsided, and the voice of reason is 
heard, that all these allegations are based 
on one short speech, and one short para- 
graph, neither of which furnishes the 
slightest ground for any such assaults. 
They are without provocation or occasion. 
History will award Mr. Graves credit for 
his unparalleled ingenuity, but will wonder 
at his success. All these allegations have 
been shown in the trial, to be groundless. 
That Mr. Graves is guilty of libellous rail- 
ing, there cannot be a doubt. 

The fourth count in the charge against 
J. R. Graves, specifies his having attacked, 
slandered, and abused brethren throughout 
the country. 

It was in evidence before the church, to 
sustain this count, that he railed upon 
Rev. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, as vain and 
ambitious ; as acting in his own pulpit in a 
ridiculous manner ; as deporting himself 
with marked discourtesy toward brethren ; 
as making a disorganizing speech ; as in- 
dulging in personalities against his breth- 
ren ; as apeing the Catholic priesthood ; as 
having a Pharisaical spirit ; and praying 
hypocritically to be seen of men. 

He defamed Jno. L. Waller, as an open 
communionist, and declared that his paper 
was spiked with Cambellite gold. 

It was in evidence before the Church 
that he did great injustice to tho Walnut 



122 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Street Baptist Church at Louisville, pub- 
lishing anonymous articles in his paper 
containing palpable falsehoods against it; 
and not only refused repeatedly to publish 
its vindication, but admitted again and 
again anonymous articles repeating the de- 
famations, and deepening the injury. It was 
in evidence that he assailed Rev. Dr. Everts 
in an article of unparalleled bitterness; 
charging him in a tissue of unheard of re- 
vilings, with "insane malignity;" with "'ap- 
pealing to the basest feelings," to " gratify 
his insatiate thirst of revenge ;" he reviled 
him, as preparing "in the study, where he 
made his book of prayers," a "malignant 
aspersion," an " appeal to every fiend in 
the nature" of Baptists, " a morsal sweet 
to his palate," " composed of falsehood" 
and " imbued with intensest malignity." 
He reviles him as "skulking behind the 
body of the dead to strike a living brother 
through the heart." He reviles him as 
one, who with an "unsanctified nature," 
" can do any thing that he imagines the 
cloak and profession of religion will cover." 
It is impossible to convey a idea of the 
spirit of the article; let the reader turn to 
the evidence. And all this was occasioned 
by a temperate resolution, vindicating the 
memory of the deceased from his aspersions. 

It was in evidence, before the church, 
that J. R. Graves uttered against Rev. Dr. 
Duncan, of Xew Orleans, numerous false- 
hoods and misrepresentations ; that though 
requested, he would make no correction, 
nor, though it was repeatedly sought, 
would he allow him to vindicate himself 
through the columns of the Tennessee 
Baptist ; he would not submit the matter 
to reference, though it was proposed by 
Bro. Duncan, nor accede to any amicable 
proposition whatever. 

He assailed Rev. Mr. Tustin, of Charles- 
ton, as a secret open communionist, as a 
Pedo Baptist in disguise, and though the 
charge was earnestly denied, and it was 



proved that the evidence upon which the 
charge was made did not apply to him, yet 
it never was retracted, but is repeated to 
this day. 

Rev. Dr. Dawson has been falsely de- 
famed in his paper, as an open communion- 
ist, in an article over the signature of 
" Probus," who is supposed to be Mr. 
Graves himself. 

It was also in evidence that Mr. Graves 
had traduced the Bible Board. The Sec- 
retary of the Bible Board had entered on a 
policy, which would have rendered the 
Board tributary to the Southwestern Pub- 
lishing House. The issues of that House 
were sought to be distributed in connec- 
tion with, and even in lieu of Bibles. A 
committee being appointed to investigate 
and report, did report to the effect that the 
instructions of the Bible Board, restricted 
its operations to the distribution of the 
scriptures, and the publications of our Pub- 
lication Societies. Mr. Graves became 
highly indignant ; assailed the members of 
the Board as envious of the superiority of 
Elder Dayton ; asserted that the Board at- 
tempted to break him down; that the mem- 
bers of the Board sought to use it, and 
even destroy it, for the purpose of injuring 
the land mark members of it, and especial- 
ly Elder Dayton ; that they sought to 
drive him from the Board ; and in the 
height of his spleen at being foiled in the 
effort to render the Board tributary to him, 
he charges the Board with the design, which 
could have been suggested only by his own 
intention, to render itself tributary to the 
Southern Baptist Publication Society ; a^d 
suggests that the whole alleged attack on 
the Secretary was intended to ruin the 
Board (!?) for the purpose of accomplish- 
ing this purpose; intimating that the 
Board meditated suicide, that its remains 
might be conveyed to Charleston ! He 
was himself endeavoring to ruin it ; broad- 
side after broadside was poured upon it ; 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



123 



and yet he affected to say that the Board 
was meditating its own destruction. And 
in the uncontrollable fury of his spleen, he 
applies to his brethren the epithet "DOGS" 
— " not a single DOG of them ALL 
■would as much as wag his tongue " 

The fifth offence charged against Mr. 
Graves is falsehood. Nine instances of 
falsehood were taken from one and the 
same paper. It is needless to specify these. 
It is painful to state that they were all es- 
tablished upon him by incontrovertible tes- 
timony, and his guilt is enhanced from their 
having been uttered with a view to excite 
prejudice against the church. 

The guilt of Mr. Graves of the offences 
charged, is undoubted. Even his own 
friends do not attempt to deny it, or to de- 
fend him. Nor does he himself make any 
defence. His friends admit that he has 
done very wrong- but they seem to think 
that his offences are not of such a charac- 
ter as to justify church discipline. We 
proceed then to complete our demonstra- 
tion, and offer the following: 

PROPOSITION II. 

The offences of which J. R. Graves 
has been proved to be guilty, are of 
such a character, as to warrant and 
demand his expulsion from the 
Church 

The first offence of which he has been 
proven guilty, is having endeavored to force 
the Pastor of the First Baptist Church 
into collision with A. C. Dayton, with in- 
tent to bring upon him reproach and inju- 
ry, and to destroy him character and influ- 
ence in the Southwest. This, as has been 
shown, has been fully established against 
hi ai. In deciding the moral quality of an 
action, it is the safest test to bring it to the 
touchstone of the divine word. Man may 
err; his passions, his prejudices, or his af- 
fections may lead him astray. But the 
divine law knows no partiality, it is unin- 



fluenced by human emotion ; its index 
points unswervingly to the dial of Eternal 
Right. 

This offence is two-fold. 1. Laboring to 
stir up strife and contention. 2. The inten- 
tion to injure the Pastor of the First 
Church. 

It is needless to trouble ourself to prov 
that strife or contention is sinful. Its sin 
fulness follows from the fact that it is in 
consistent with the love which the scrip 

>tures enjoin.^ It is plainly denounced ir 
the divine word. " He loveth transgres 

i sion that loveth strife." Prov. xvii. 19: 
" Wherefore have we fasted say they, and 
thou seest not. . . . Behold ye fast for 
strife and to smite with the fist of wick- 



edi 



Is. Iviii, 3, 4. 



Let us walk 
honestly as in the day; . . . not in 
strife and envying." Rom. viii, 14. "Now 
the works of the flesh are manifest, which 
are these, adultery, fornication, un clean- 
ness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, 
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, 
&c." Gal. v. 19, 20. It is unnecessary 
to multiply quotations on this point. 

From the sinfulness of strife, the truth 
of our proposition necessarily follows, that 

LABORING TO STIR UP STRIFE IS SINFUL. 

Without further argument on this point, 
we appeal to the unerring teachings of Rev- 
elation. This sin is frequently and solemnly 
denounced. We select some passages at ran- 
dom. "A fro ward man soweth strife." 
Prob. xvi, 28. " There are that raise up 
strife and contention, therefore, the law is 
slacked, and judgment doth never go forth." 
I Hab. 1, 3, 5. " These six things cloth the 
' Lord hate ; yea seven are an abomination 
I unto him ; a proud look, a lying tongue, 
: hands that shed innocent blood, an heart 
that deviseth wicked imaginaticns, feet that 
be swift in running to mischief, a false wit- 
ness that speaketh lies, and he that SOW- 
ETH DISCORD AMONG BRETHREN." 



124 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



Prov. vi, 15 — 18. " A wicked man walk- 
eth with a froward mouth : * * * Fro- 
wardness is in his heart, he deviseth mis- 
chief continually; he soweth discord. 
Therefore shall his calamity 'come suddenly; 
suddenly shall he be broken without reme- 
dy." Prov. vi, 12, 14, 15. 

"While laboring to stir up strife is itself 
sinful, the design with which, in this case, 
it was done, intensifies the guilt. The 
minister of Christ is his servant, called to 
labor for him in a public position. His 
labor, his influence belong to Him who 
has called him, and whose servant he is. 
When called to the pastoral office, his char- 
acter, and influence for good become, in a 
peculiar manner, the property of the 
Church. All his powers are dedicated to 
the work, and belong to the Church, and 
to the head of the Church. Any injury 
to his character and usefulness, is an injury 
to the Church, to the cause of religion, 
and of Christ. Any injury which disqual- 
ifies a general for the discharge of his duties, 
or which incapacitates a statesman for his 
office, is an injury to the State ; so it is an 
injury to the cause of Christ, to destroy 
the influence and usefulness of a Christian 
Pastor. Again : as it it contumacious to 
the State, to attempt to offer injury to a 
judge, or to a legal officer, so it is contumely 
to the King of Zion, to assail and injure 
a brother laboring in an ofiicial capacity 
in His Kingdom. The influence of Dr. 
Howell has been powerful for good. The 
destruction of that influence would be, to 
that extent, prejudicial to the cause of Zion. 
We can only measure the consequence, by 
imagining every man of equal influence to 
be stricken down. Though the light of 
one star should not be missed from heaven, 
yet the sacrilegious hand that would dash 
it from its sphere, is as audacious in rebel- 
lion, as though it had attempted to darken 
every constellation in the firmament. 

This attempt to stir up strife, and that 



between fellow- servants in a common min- 
istry, who above all should love one another, 
and to destroy the influence of one by that 
of the other, when both, as star beams 
blend and mingle, should converge and 
combine, is deeply sinful. It is as if he 
would set the heavens at war; and if Mr. 
Graves had been guilty of no other offence, 
this one alone, so offensive in the sight of 
heaven, should receive the condemnation 
of the Church. 

The SECOND OFFENCE of which J. R. 
Graves has been proven to be guilty, is an 
attempt to distract and divide the church, 
by means of a conflict between the Pastor 
and four of the Deacons. 

The attempt at schism here proven was 
afterwards consummated. Two of the four 
Deacons, whom he labored so assiduously 
to throw into conflict with the Pastor, were 
influenced by him, and have sustained him 
in his schismatical course. 

None will deny, that an attempt at schism 
is an offence demanding the highest seal of 
disapprobation, which the church can im- 
pose. "Now I beseech you brethren, by the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all 
speak the same thing, and that there be 
no divisions among you ; but that ye be 
perfectly joined together in the same mind, 
and in the same judgment. 1 Cor. i : 10. 
Xow I beseech you brethren, mark them v:h ich 
cause DIVISIONS, and offences contrary 
to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and 
avoid them. For they that are such, 
serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their 
own belly, and by good words, and fair 
speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple. 
Roms. svi: 17, 18. 

Andrew Fuller, than whose opinions, none 
are entitled to greater respect, in comment- 
ing on this passage almost fifty years ago, 
says 



The characters to be avoided appear to 
be persons whose object it is to sefrup a 
party in the church, of which they maybe 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES. 



12 



the heads or leaders — a kind of religious 
dernajrosues. Such wen are found, at one 
time or other, in most societies : and in 
boine cases, the peace of the churches has 
been invaded by strangers, who are not of 
their own community. Let the "brethren" 
have their eye upon such men. "Mark 
them." Trace their conduct, and you will 
soon discover their motives. Stand aloof 
from them, and "avoid" striking in with 
their dividing measures. In case of their 
being members, the church collectively consid- 
ered ought, no doubt, to PUT AWAY from 
amongst them such persons : but, as ev- 
ery collective body is composed of individ- 
uals, if those individuals suffer themselves 
to be drawn away, the church is necessarily 
thrown into confusion, and rendered inca- 
pable of a prompt, unanimous, and decided 
conduct. Let members of churches there- 
fore beware how they listen to the insinua- 
tions of those, who would entice them to 
join their party. Men of this stamp are 
described by the apostle, and therefore 
may be known, particularly by three things: 
First, By their doctrine : it is contrary to 
that which has been learned of Christ. Se- 
condly, By their selfish pursuits : "they 
serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their 
own bellies." Thirdly, By their insinuat- 
ing, whining pretences of affectionate re- 
gard towards their partizans : "by good 
words, and fair speeches, they deceive the 
hearts of the simple." 

The applicability of these remarks to the 
present case will be seen by all. The. sin- 
fulness of him who would rend asunder the 
body of Christ, and destroy its unity, need 
not be enlarged on. 

The sinful character of stirring up strife 
between the Pastor and Deacons, from which 
this end would result, has already been es 
tablished. 2STo one will deny that introdu- 
cing dissension into the heart of the church, 
by stirring up baleful passions, and thus 
causing a conflict between the Pastor and 
Deacons, is a sin justifying exclusion. 

The THIRD OFFENCE, of which J. R. 
Graves has been proven guilty, is uttering 
and publishing in his paper sundry libels 
against his pastor. The character of these 



libels has been seen. They are such acts as 
are designated in the scripture by the terms 
"railing" and "reviling." ISTo other term 
will designate the application to a brother of 
such epithets as a "Herod;" the likening him to 
the Chief Priests and Scribes; to the raisers 
of the mob at Ephesus ; and accusing of be- 
ing actuated by envy to ruin a brother 
&c, kc. 

The moral character of these acts is clear- 
ly designated with the scriptures. " Know 
ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: 
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul- 
terers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of them- 
selves with mankind, nor thieves, nor cov- 
etous, nor drunkards, nor RAILERS, nor 
extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of 
God." First Corinthians vi: 9-10. "But 
now I have written unto you not to keep 
company if any man that is called a brother 
be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, 
or a R AILER, or a drunkard, or an extor- 
tioner; with such an one, no, not to eat" 
. . . . therefore PUT AWAY from among 
you that wicked person. The Apostle here 
prescribes the course to be adopted with such 
characters. But it may be urged in extenua- 
tion, that a portion of these railing accusations 
are by correspondents. Some of them were the 
private letters of correspondents, reflecting 
the views imbibed from Mr. Graves. They 
were deceived by him ; they did not intend 
to injure Dr. Howell, but only to express 
sympathy for Mr. Graves. He seized upon 
those letters without the knowledge of the 
writers, and used them to accomplish his 
purpose. Is the murderer less guilty be- 
cause he seizes the axe of another, which lies 
at his door, to accomplish his fell design ? 
The use made of these letters was the act 
of Mr. Graves. It was his act alone ; and 
upon him rests the responsibility. The wri- 
tings of Mr. Graves would sustain us in go 
mg further even than this. In the Tennes- 
see Baptist, December 25th, 1858, he says : 



126 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATES. 



'' No man has a right to defame another, 
or to stab his character with another secret- 
ly, any more than he has to a less offensive 
action in sight of heaven, i. e., assassinate 
him ; and the man who will allow himself to 
be made a confidant in a plan or attempt to 
murder or assault a man's body, or burns 
his houses, or injure his property, by that 
confidence, is, in the eye of the law accessa- 
ry to the deed, and [is] to all intents and pur- 
poses, guilty of the act contemplated." 

Mr. Graves was not merely the confidant 
of those correspondents, but seized their com- 
munications, as weapons for the accomplish- 
ment of his purpose. 

This attempt to ruin a brother evinces the 
rankling of unholy feelings, and such con- 
duct imperatively claims the action of the 
church, and, unless repented of, demands 
exclusion. To contend that it is personal 
only, is a vain subterfuge. So is assault and 
battery personal injury, but who will con- 
tend that repeated assault and battery would 
not justify exclusion from the church! The 
injury, here, is deeper, by so much as injury 
to the reputation is more serious, than triv- 
ial injuries to the person. The reputation is 
dearer, injury to it is more lasting, and more 
severe. Rev. Dr. Baker classes public per- 
sonal injury, as by assault and battery, with 
sins which justify exclusion from the church. 
In the instance under consideration, the injury 
is more public, inflicts a deeper wound, and 
is more disgraceful to the cause of Christ. 
Every consideration combines in forcing us 
to the conclusion, that this offence was of 
such a character as fully justified the exclu- 
sion of J. R. Graves from the church. 

The FOURTH OFFEXCE of which J. R. 
Graves has been proven guilty, is attacking, 
slandering, and abusing brethren throughout 
the country. The railing on Dr. Fuller, of 
Baltimore ; the attacks on the memory of 
AYaller ; the injuries inflicted on the Walnut 
Street Church ; the revilings of Dr. Everts, 
of Louisville ; the wrongs inflicted by false 
allegations upon Dr. Duncan, of New Or- 



leans; the persistent and unprovoked assaults 
upon Rev. Mr. Tustin, of Charleston; the 
slander and defamation of Dr. Dawson; the 
attacks upon, and revilings of the members 
of the Bible Board, taken singly, and in the 
aggregate, constitute offences of such char- 
acter of reviling, and wanton public injury, 
as have already been proved to be public 
sins, warranting and demanding the highest 
seal of reprobation. 

The FIFTH OFFENCE of which J R. 
Graves has been proven guilty, is wilful and 
deliberate falsehood. On the moral charac- 
ter of this offence it is unnecessary to dwell. 
Public sentiment coincides with revelation, 
in fixing upon it the brand of universal con- 
demnation. 

COROLLARIES. 

In conclusion: I. It has been shown that 
J. R. Graves was charged with offences, 
which justified the church in proceeding 
with the trial, according to the universal cus- 
toms of justice, and the rules of the scrip- 
tures. The witnesses brought foward by Mr. 
Graves to sustain his course, by their tes- 
timony condemn him, and sustain the church. 

Corollary 1. The protest of Mr. Graves 
falls to the ground, and his affecting to re- 
fuse to be tried is highly schismatical, and is 
wholly unsustained by reason or scripture. 

Corollary 2. Those persons who affected 
to withdraw with Mr. Graves are schismat- 
ics, whose course was highly sinful, and un- 
less repented of, will compel their exclusion 
from the church. 

Corollary 3. As no man can take advan- 
tage of his own wrong, the pretended with- 
drawal of Mr. Graves could not effect the 
right of the church to proceed with the 
trial, and the church acted in a proper and 
scriptural manner in proceeding with the 
trial in his absence. 

II. It has been shown that the evidence 
before the church fully proved the guilt of 
J. R. Graves of the offences charged. 

III. It has been shown that the offences 



127 



TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATES. 



proven upon him are, each and all, of such a 
character as fully warrant and demand his 
exclusion from the church. 

Corollary 1. The Church in excluding 
J. R. Graves acted under the authority of 
Christ, and her decision is binding by his 
authority and decree. 



Corollary 2. J. R. Graves is "as a heathen 
man and a publican." "Whatsoever ye 
shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea- 
ven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." Matt, xviii ; 
18. 



*N*r^rN 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 523 661 2 % 



c cVc 



;"W* 



'r.\\?.;^& ■ 



M 



tit* 








felSw^ 




. «: c < c 





f ( 



I ■ 






